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

I present the first annual report of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce for tabling. First, I want to acknowledge and reiterate the Set the standard report findings that an unacceptably high rate of people, particularly women, in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces experienced bullying, sexual harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault whilst at work. This misconduct is unacceptable, and we acknowledge the grave impact it had or continues to have on current and former staff. Whilst we commend the progress this parliament has made, we note that there is still much more work to be done to achieve the goals we all set 12 months ago. We want to uphold the highest standards of workplace behaviour, in line with what is expected of us by the Australian public.

Since the Set the standard report was adopted by this parliament one year ago, the composition of the parliament has changed. In the 2022 election we saw the numbers of women increase, as well as the numbers of those parliamentarians elected as independents without the support of traditional political parties. These changes to the composition of parliament have no doubt brought their own cultural change. However, the report's findings remain as relevant as ever to all parliamentarians and their staff.

The Set the standard report provided a road map for the parliament to implement systemic and cultural changes in a range of areas to make Parliament House and Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safe and respectful places to work. Over the past 12 months, leaders from across the parliament and departments have responded to the report to progress the 28 recommendations. The Set the standard report categorised 28 recommendations by just five outcomes: leadership; diversity, equality and inclusion; systems to support performance; standards, reporting and accountability; and safety and wellbeing.

Of the 28 recommendations, six have already been implemented, four have been partially implemented and 17 are in progress, noting that many of those are ongoing measures. Implementing the 28 recommendations is a shared responsibility across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, including government, Presiding Officers, parliamentary departments, political parties and parliamentarians. Change will come with the continuous commitment and goodwill of members and senators.

Today we all recommit ourselves, with concerted effort and attention, to the recommendations of the Set the Standard review. Over the next 12 months we should see the expansion of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, to be established as an independent statutory human resource entity providing advice and training to parliamentarians and staff; the endorsement of codes of conduct for all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces; the introduction of improved health and wellbeing services, including GP services and pharmaceutical and mental health supports; the consideration of amendments to standing orders and conventions to improve levels of safety and respect in the chamber; and the modernisation of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the MOP(S) Act.

I acknowledge the leadership and commitment of many people for the work completed to date, including the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, as well as the Prime Minister, the opposition leader and other party leaders. The nation is looking to this parliament to show leadership in this space, and the expectation is that we will deliver.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) endorses the draft Behaviour Standards and Codes as presented in the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards' final report, pending the establishment of the advisory and enforcement regime, and the final enactment of Behaviour Standards and Codes for parliamentarians, parliamentarians' staff and Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces; and

(b) recognises the contribution of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to improving the culture at Parliament House and its role in supporting parliamentarians and their staff.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this important motion. It does a number of things in terms of progressing the Set the standard report and in terms of endorsing the draft behaviour standards and codes, as recommended by the joint select committee report, whilst the formal and final enforcement and advisory regime is put in place. We also have the annual report of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. We acknowledge the PWSS. It also meets the recommendation of the Set the standard report to have an annual discussion about behaviour and standards in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.

Twelve months ago this parliament committed to implementing the Set the standard report and set out a road map for how we could lead the nation in workplace standards rather than lag behind. On this day last year the parliament acknowledged that we had a problem. We did not meet the expectations of the community, the staff who worked here and the parliamentarians who call this place their home away from home. It was a tough day for a lot of people but an important one.

The reason we could have that conversation was due to the bravery of a number of current and former staff, in particular, who were willing to speak about their experiences in this place. The problems the report identified brought to light what had been a lived experience for too many for too long: gender inequality, with a lack of women in senior roles; a lack of accountability in systems for those who wanted to report misconduct, including appropriate redress; the 'work hard, play hard' culture at Parliament House, which had left some, particularly young women, vulnerable to exploitation and sexual assault; and high levels of power and discretion in relation to employment, combined with insecure employment.

There were 28 recommendations in the report and we adopted all of them, as did the former coalition government. The Labor government has continued the approach that began this time last year to work across the parliament to put in place the changes that are needed and to improve the experience of all who work here and across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. We have achieved some significant progress in implementing the reforms. Six recommendations have been implemented, four have been partially implemented, and 17 are in progress and ongoing.

The completed work includes the establishment of Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, and I acknowledge those senators who have worked with me on that: Senator Farrell, Senator Hume, Senator Birmingham who has also played a significant role, and Senator Waters. We have tried to agree on issues across the parliament, which isn't always easy, but I want to thank my colleagues for engaging in good faith in this process. This work included support for the creation of the new HR entity and enhanced Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards has delivered a road map for the behavioural codes and standards which we will consider as part of this motion.

Government has completed a review of the MOP(S) Act and accepted in principle all 15 recommendations. We've passed protections against age and disability discrimination, and parliament has changed its standing orders to try and facilitate more family-friendly hours. Can I also at this point thank you Kerri Hartland, who was the independent chair of the inaugural Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce but who has moved on to other roles. She took on the job of chairing the PLT, which has the significant challenge of trying to corral parliamentarians of all walks and parties across this place. The PLT is in the final process of appointing an independent chair to fill the vacancy left by Kerri Hartland, and I acknowledge the work she put in place.

Over the next 12 months the government will progress, in consultations across the parliament, two of the most significant reforms in the review: the passage of legislation to enshrine the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as the independent HR entity, which will ensure that parliamentarians and staff can access arms-length and fit-for-purpose advice and training in relation to workplace matters. This motion today appropriately acknowledges the role the PWS is already playing across our workplaces, and thank you to Meg Brighton and her team for establishing such a professional and respected service. We have also ahead of us the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to support an investigation and compliance regime for the codes of conduct. Getting this structure right will be very important as it will be an enduring feature of many parliaments that come after us. Working across the parliament to get this right is an ambition of the government and is shared by all members of the PLT.

Parliament House is a unique workplace. We want to attract the best and brightest here and we want them to have an enriching and fulfilling experience. Thank you to our staff for your involvement in this work and for all that you do. I truly hope that you have seen improvements in your workplace over the past 12 months. We want to ensure that staff don't work in a grey zone where they have no clear guidance about standards and expectations. It can be hard to work in our offices in this place and also in electorate offices, which can be an isolating experience for some. We have a shared responsibility to make sure people who work in this building and in other political offices are able to do their job in a safe way and where they are confident that the systems and supports are there when and if they need them. This remains our ongoing task to guide us and ensure that we deliver on it.

Question agreed to.

I rise to speak on this very important motion and, before I do, can I acknowledge not just the good work of my colleagues and the entire parliament but that in the gallery we have the President of UN Women Australia, Georgina Williams. I acknowledge the extraordinary work that her organisation does in progressing the causes of women and girls around the country and, indeed, around world.

One year ago, this parliament made an acknowledgement that it could do better, not in an area of particular public policy or in the way that we consider laws but as a workplace. We acknowledged that we have not always done enough and, in many instances, that we have failed. But we also committed to change. Everyone deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace, and all parties have a role in improving the parliament's culture. There have been challenges in our workplace, and there is no doubt about that. We take the necessary changes very seriously. In acknowledging the annual report on the implementation of the Jenkins review, I am pleased to say to the Senate that we are making steady progress. This progress was started under the former government with bipartisanship, and the coalition is committed to making sure that this work remains about making our Commonwealth parliamentary workplace a model workplace for Australia. And it's why we accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Foster review, including an independent complaints mechanism, workplace training and improved independent support services. It's why the former government accepts the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all 28 of the recommendations.

There have been concrete changes. Thanks to the last parliament we now have in place an independent and confidential complaints mechanism for current and former parliamentarians and staff. We have a confidential 24-hour support service for current and former parliamentarians and staff. And we have new training and education programs for all of our staff and parliamentarians to keep our workplaces safe and respectful.

The parliament made a statement of acknowledgement. The parliament has established the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce with representatives from all sides. We passed legislation that ensures that all staff and parliamentarians are covered by age and disability discrimination acts. And thanks to this parliament a review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 has been completed and we have accepted in principle all of the recommendations. The joint committee on the parliamentary standards has delivered draft codes of conduct for our workplaces. The work to implement these changes has been led by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, which represents parties and parliamentarians from across the parliament. We are encouraged by the progress that has occurred in the time since the Jenkins review.

This work has been done in consultation with all parts of our workplaces—parliamentarians, staff, members of parliamentary departments and government departments, the press gallery and external stakeholders. We know that no matter what part of our workplace, no matter what office or what role, you should feel safe and you should feel respected. It is encouraging that all of these groups are contributing and recognising their roles in promoting the need for change.

As Commissioner Jenkins said at the National Press Club on the anniversary of her presenting the review to the former government:

The Parliament committed to all 28 recommendations, and I am inspired by the real action I see there.

…   …   …

… what I hear when I visit Parliament House. Quiet comments, made in passing….before and after meetings… in lifts and corridors… from political staffers, journalists and departmental staff… 'Thank you for the work you're doing. It is making this a better place.'

The work of change is hard, and we need to remember it's painful for those with lived experience. However, with continued action, and vigilance against complacency, I believe our Parliament is well-placed to become the safe, respectful and diverse workplace we need it to be.

There is more work to be done. But the coalition is committed to working with all parties, independents and staff to continue to make our workplaces safer and more respectful for everyone. This parliament should serve as a model workplace for our nation, and only by creating the best workplace will this parliament attract the best people that our country has to offer.

I rise to speak in reply to the tabling of the first Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce annual report and the commitment across the chamber to implement codes of conduct for parliamentarians and for staff. One year ago, we stood in this place and acknowledged all those who had been harmed, abused, raped, harassed, bullied, discriminated against or otherwise made to feel unsafe in this place. We recognised the hurt that had occurred, the toxic culture that had allowed it and the bravery of those who had spoken out and forced a change. I said at the time that the acknowledgement was important but words were not enough.

I am very pleased to be able to stand here one year on and report on the progress that has been made and to restate the Greens' commitment to implement the Set the standard recommendations in their entirety. There is still a long way to go, but the momentum is with this change and I am hopeful that parliamentary workplaces can be safe, diverse, inclusive and respectful—the model workplaces that the Australian people expect. The Set the standard report made it clear that two major hurdles to effectively change the culture in this place were the lack of a robust enforceable code of conduct and the lack of an independent complaints mechanism that people could trust would take genuine action against bullies and harassers.

We know that for First Nations people, people of colour, people with disability, the harassment and disrespect experienced in this place or even online when working in parliamentary roles is even worse. Sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia and classism persist, and are even more damaging and dangerous when they intersect. Increasing diversity in this place is crucial but that cannot happen without measures to make this a safe workplace for a more diverse range of people.

I am very pleased that we now have cross-party support for the codes of conduct that I desperately hope will improve behavioural standards in this place. I thank the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards, in particular my colleague Senator Faruqi, for their work in developing these codes, and for Senator Faruqi's tireless and successful efforts to strengthen the code, particularly as the only person of colour in the room on that joint committee. Senator Faruqi will speak more about the role that those codes will play. We welcome the amendments to the MOP(S) Act to strengthen staff protections and the independent Parliamentary Workplace Support Service that has been providing sensitive, high-quality support to staff and to which the government has committed to continuing.

Within our own party, the Greens have taken clear steps to confirm our commitment. We have strengthened our internal codes of conduct and complaints mechanisms. We have ensured that MPs and staff undertake regular training to promote First Nations cultural awareness, antiracism and accessibility. We remain committed to achieving diversity and gender equality. This commitment informs our decisions regarding preselection of candidates, election to leadership positions and recruitment. I am proud that we have a party room and a party with strong representation from women and non-binary folk, First Nations and people of colour, LGBTIQ+ community, people from regional areas, young people and people with disability. Our party is stronger as a result of this diversity but even we need to do better.

Ultimately, the test of our success is not whether I feel confident or safe or respected in this workplace; it is whether our staff feel safe and whether parliament is a place where people want to work. It is critical that staff continue to be involved in the reforms to implement the Set the standard recommendations and feel supported to tell us when we are not doing enough. Staff consultation mechanisms are an outstanding issue that all parties need to come to the table on and that the Greens are committed to progressing.

I want to finish by again thanking Commissioner Jenkins for the incredible work that she and her small team did to set out the roadmap for us follow. She will be wrapping up her role as Sex Discrimination Commissioner in just a few months and she deserves to feel deep pride and the gratitude of all of us and all of the folk who work in this place for her role in catalysing the changes that we are seeing. Let's continue to clean up what has been a really toxic and damaging workplace and lets aspire to actually set the standard for the rest of the nation.

I warmly welcome today's debate on the Set the standard report. This is clearly something that is not a set-and-forget exercise. This needs to be an ongoing conversation that we revisit. Cultural change is hard. It takes time and continued effort. Twelve months on, it is clear that there has been some progress but there is a lot more work to be done in this area. As the President noted, only six of the 28 recommendations have been implemented in full, so we can continue to crack on with it. As a new parliamentarian, I welcome and reflect on the strong focus on safety that was part of my induction process. I note that the review benefited from 1,723 individual contributions. It was wide ranging and robust, and we need those contributions to continue. We need to continually evaluate how we are progressing on this. As Senator Waters pointed out, the test is not how parliamentarians feel but how staff and everyone else in this building feel.

One of the really important parts of this sort of cultural change when we're talking about sexual harassment is that men need to really step up, be part of this and be advocating. That ties into the broader conversations that we are having in Australia when it comes to family and domestic violence. Men must stand up. At the end of the day, much of this—not all but much of this—is a men's problem. It is some of those deeply ingrained cultural attitudes. They don't serve us. I think we all recognise the need to move beyond them and to have these hard conversations. So I welcome this place beginning to lead on this and to set the standard and to show the country that this is something that is being taken seriously. I really believe that that leadership will have flow-on effects through our communities.

Members of my team were pleased to engage constructively and provide a comprehensive submission to the review of the MOP(S) Act last year. It was disappointing that the findings of that review did not have more ambition when it comes to addressing fundamental issues affecting the wellbeing of our teams in this place—things like ensuring that staffing levels are set independently and through evidence-based decision-making processes.

Of the risk factors identified in the Set the standard report, many are still prevalent here today—power imbalances, gender inequality, lack of accountability, entitlement and exclusion. The Set the standard report's findings around the incidence of sexual harassment were particularly shocking: it found that 54 per cent of the most recent sexual harassment incidents occurred at Parliament House or in the parliamentary precincts and 26 per cent of people sexually harassed in workplaces by a single harasser were harassed by a parliamentarian. While it's really encouraging to see this debate continue, we need to continue to talk about this not just in here but in our offices, between parliamentarians and with our staff. This is something that has to be an ongoing conversation. I really welcome it, and I welcome the leadership that has been shown by senators across the political spectrum on this issue.

I welcome the opportunity to rise and speak on the Set the standard report on behalf of the Nationals. As the Nationals representative on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, I want to thank my colleagues on that task force for coming together and working very constructively to implement the recommendations of the Set the standard report.

I also want to acknowledge the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service for what they have achieved to date. In a very short time frame they have established an office, processes and protocols and commenced an education campaign so that our staff and our parliamentarians understand what the role of the PWSS is and what they're doing. I have already heard good things from people who find comfort in knowing that there are now processes in place and a trusted, confidential complaints handling process that they can use if they need to.

It is an unfortunate truth that all too often it takes an unfortunate incident to actually ignite change. But change is what we all committed to, across party lines. The Nationals sincerely want to work on that change and change for the better for the people who work not just here but also in our electoral offices.

We often hear in this place about the need for family-friendly work hours, which is to be commended, but we also must acknowledge we work in a highly unusual environment where we have people coming together away from their families for lengthy periods of time. So, while nine to five might suit people who live in and around Canberra and its environs, some of us who are travelling hours to get here to work would rather spend the weekends at home with our families. That must be acknowledged.

The Nationals are committed—absolutely committed—to respectful workplaces. Indeed, my branch, the New South Wales Nationals, developed a very comprehensive code of conduct and complaints-handling process well over five years ago which we regularly review. A similar protocol has now been implemented at a federal level. We didn't wait for this place to tell our party that we needed codes of conduct. We were already there, and we continue to commitment to that.

We are also committed to diversity within the Nationals. Indeed, we were the first major political party to ever elect a woman, Mrs Shirley McKerrow OAM, as the federal president of a political party in Australia. Mrs McKerrow tells a wonderful anecdote about when she was invited to meet the Queen. She was introduced as the first female president of a political party, and the Queen said, 'Why do you think that would be?' Well, Mrs McKerrow tells the story that at the time she just sort of shrugged and nodded. Hindsight is a wonderful thing because, as the Queen moved down the line, Mrs McKerrow wished she had said, 'Because I'm probably the first one to put my hand up.' We were also the first federal political party to appoint a female federal director in Cecile Ferguson, who I know personally and admire greatly.

But diversity is not just about gender, not just about religion, not just about race. We must also acknowledge that we need to have diversity of socioeconomic and geographic backgrounds, a diversity of life experience and professional skills. This focus must be nationwide and must apply at local and state levels as well as federally. We always hear about the Canberra bubble. We always hear the accusations of a generic type of person coming into politics—former staffers, former unionists, former lawyers—but it is not true and must not be true. So as we continue to pursue and implement the recommendations of the Set the standard report, I implore people to recognise that diversity is wide-ranging and we must respect all forms of diversity. I commend the report to the chamber.

I rise to speak to the 2022 annual report from the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce which provides an update on the implementation of the recommendations by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, for the report titled Set the standard. From the outset, I want to thank the leadership taskforce, and in particular my colleague and friend Senator Waters, for the important work they are doing.

We can never forget the Jenkins report revealed that a staggering 51 per cent of people working in parliamentary workplaces have experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault. One-in-three staffers who participated in the review had been sexually harassed. The highest office in this country should have led the way on workplace safety. Instead, it was revealed to be toxic, cutthroat and hypermasculine; a place where you're expected to develop a thick skin and act like a man. The so-called rough and tumble of politics has real consequences for those of us who don't conform to these expectations.

The report referred directly to discrimination experienced by First Nations people, people of colour, people with disability and LGBTQI+ people. These included daily exclusion, microaggressions, bullying, role segregation and a lack of psychological safety. The under-representation of these cohorts is linked to systemic inequality and creates a conducive environment for bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. That is the reason I pushed so hard for the behaviour codes to explicitly prohibit discrimination, including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability or religion.

I'm really pleased with the progress made in implementing the Jenkins recommendations. In November the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards tabled behaviour codes of conduct which apply to parliamentary precincts, parliamentarians and staff. These codes, unanimously agreed by our committee, show that we are serious about stopping unacceptable behaviour in this place, and I'm really glad to see that the behaviour codes are being endorsed by this chamber and the other one today. The codes will set an expectation of how we behave here. How this place changes for the better, though, will depend on our commitment to changing culture. We must keep an eye on each other and call out unacceptable behaviour—like racism, sexism, bullying and intimidation, and also all forms of discrimination—whenever and wherever it happens. I do urge the government to quickly set up the investigative and enforcement mechanisms, to give the codes power to make the change so desperately needed and to hold us all accountable.

I am heartened that other recommendations are also progressing. I particularly acknowledge the excellent work being done by the PWSS, who have already contributed to making parliament safer and more supportive. But there is still so much to do, particularly on diversity. It is great to see that the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has ample female representation. But what about diversity? The task force is not representative of this diversity. There is no person of colour or First Nations person on that task force.

Recommendation 9 of the Jenkins report called for a review of the physical infrastructure, policies and practices within parliament, to increase accessibility and inclusion. This must be a priority. The mandatory training recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, including on antiracism, disability discrimination and First Nations cultural awareness, is crucial to challenging an entrenched culture of privilege and power.

While the government has reduced the length of sitting days, in the interests of wellbeing—and that's a good thing—we need to get better at sticking to these changes. Rushed hours motions to extend sitting times till late at night became all too common last year, at the cost of people's wellbeing. They're also not in the interests of carefully considered policymaking. Our parliament should lead the way in creating a decent workplace—one where everyone feels safe, respected and valued; one where people from all walks of life and backgrounds want to come and work.

I want to finish by saying one of the most important things that I feel. I pay tribute to the people who work in this place currently and who did formerly for their courage in speaking up about the broken culture which allowed bullying, harassment, sexual assault and racism to continue. Your courage is causing change for the better.

Twelve months ago, our parliament faced up to some deeply uncomfortable truths, truths which I'm sure shocked some people in this building but which, for far too many people—women, in particular, who work here or have worked here—caused old wounds to sting. These truths, told bravely by staff and former staff and by representatives, sparked change—sparked something significant. And I want to acknowledge their bravery in the work which has led us to this point.

This past year has seen a lot of change, and I want to acknowledge the work of our Minister for Women, as well as the former government and Senators Waters and Faruqi, who have all been working on changing this place or working to create the culture that we know we need to see. This progress is significant, with six recommendations implemented, four implemented in part and 17 in progress and ongoing. I also acknowledge the work of the PWSS, which has also been significant in the short time frame in which they've been operational.

The work on the codes of conduct is momentous. It represents a significant change in this place, and so will the infrastructure that supports them. But cultural change is hard. It is not static. There is no set-and-forget nature to the work ahead of us. Even once every recommendation is implemented, there is no set-and-forget nature for this. As custodians of the culture in this place, it is the responsibility of all of us to continue to work to improve it beyond the work of Set the standard and beyond these recommendations we'll implement.

On this anniversary, I want to particularly acknowledge all of our staff still working in the building and in electorate offices across the country, working to change our nation for the better, full of passion and hope, who we have so badly failed over many, many years. I first walked into this building as a very junior political staffer at the age of 18. I know, and I participated in this review as well. I want every single staffer who participated and who was part of creating this change to be proud of the contribution they have made to the work that we are acknowledging today and the work that is yet to be done. I want to assure every single person working as a staff member in this building that there are many people here, from all political parties, in this chamber and across the hall in the House of the Representatives, who want to reward your courage, your honesty and your bravery with work, action and a change to the culture of this place, which will make you proud.

I rise to speak on the implementation of the Set the standard report, and I'd like to start by thanking the ministers, leaders and senators who have spoken on this very important topic today. I'd also like to acknowledge those who are speaking similarly in the other place. Today marks one year since the parliament acknowledged the report by Commissioner Kate Jenkins entitled Set the standard, and that is what we've been asked to do—set the standard. We serve in this place in positions of influence. Every parliamentarian works incredibly hard, but to be chosen by the electorate is indeed a privilege. It's up to all of us to set the standard for our colleagues, our staff, those who enter our workplaces and those who participate in our democracy. Speaking here today, I want to address our staff directly. As I've said before, this is your workplace; you deserve nothing less than a completely safe and respectful workplace.

I want to particularly acknowledge the work of my colleagues in this place on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, Senator Gallagher, Senator Hume and Senator Waters, who all worked very hard in that role. I should point out that I was the only male on that task force. I also want to acknowledge those on the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and those who contributed to the various reviews, and I acknowledge the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service for its ongoing work and contribution. We have made progress in this place; that should be acknowledged, but there is much more to do, and this government is committed to continuing this work.

Section 17 of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, under 'Complaints under this code', says:

Any attempt to intimidate or victimise a reporter/complainant or to lobby, influence or intimidate the IPSC (its office-holders, staff or contractors) will be treated as a serious and aggravated breach of this code.

I need to raise something very important here—the James Ashby case, which happened under Labor when Gillard was in here. James Ashby was sexually harassed by Peter Slipper, and this went before the courts. Evidence was proven of this sexual harassment. Because they needed Peter Slipper's vote and he was Speaker of the House of Representatives—Anthony Albanese was up to his neck in it and knew what was happening—Labor gave him an unlimited cheque; they actually funded it. James Ashby, who couldn't afford it, had to walk away from the case. It was proven there that sexual harassment happened, and Labor shut it down. His wasn't the only case; they had paid out two male staffers prior to this. This is on the record. James Ashby and his lawyers have accumulated a $4 million debt to try and defend himself in a sexual harassment case. That is what did happen. Yet it happens in this place, and I saw the politics play out with Brittany Higgins. You have a prime minister sit there in the chamber and offer her an apology. It hadn't even been before the courts. Everyone was accused of it, and nothing has been proven, and still it's denied in the courts—walked away, but a payout is given to her. For what? Taxpayers' money.

This is not fair, and you have not done anything about it. And I will be upfront. I confronted the Liberal Party about paying the expenses of James Ashby, which needs to be done. And I approached the coalition government. They have refused to. My understanding is that the finance department left it up to Senator Cormann to make the decision. Senator Cormann refused. Is it politics? Yet they gave an ex gratia payment to Peter Slipper, and they have given an ex gratia payment to Christian Porter. Looking after your own. But the fact is they haven't done—and since then, I have spoken to the Labor Party about this. I have seen Minister Farrell with regard to this. I have put forward why they should be clearing his debt in light of the fact that Labor were responsible for this. They allowed it to happen. They kept paying Peter Slipper's bills and allowed this to happen, so justice was not done. The evidence was there.

I'm asking the government: be true to your word here in this chamber and pay James Ashby's legal costs, which he's entitled to. Sexual harassment—if you are true to yourself, then be upfront and make that payment to him to clear his name and give him peace of mind, because he went through hell, absolute hell. Even to this day he wears the scars with it. He won't say it himself, but I'm going to say it, because I can in this chamber, on behalf of James Ashby and the people of Australia: Is it because he's male that you don't do anything about it? Is it because you're a man that it makes no difference? This has to come out in the open, and I'm asking you, in good faith, please stand by your word. Please support him. And I'm asking Anthony Albanese: please, as Prime Minister, have some decency and understand what you did to this man at that time, and please make sure that you give him that ex gratia payment.

I move:

That the Senate—

That the following general business orders of the day be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills:

No. 30 Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023, today; and

No. 19 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Fight for Australia's Coastline) Bill 2022, on Thursday, 9 February 2023.

Question agreed to.

The Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023, which has been introduced into the Senate, is a bill that aims to keep all people in the Northern Territory safe in relation to the consumption of alcohol and exposure to alcohol related harm and violence. My bill was drafted in response to calls from vulnerable community members across the Northern Territory and a letter that was dated 9 June, representing nine separate Aboriginal organisations, seeking urgent support from the federal Minister for Indigenous Australians after failed attempts at communicating these concerns with the Northern Territory Fyles government. The Northern Territory government's response to community cries was followed by neglect and inaction, all justified by accusations that alcohol restrictions were nothing more than race based policies. It was only when the Prime Minister was shamed by a Sydney based radio program that he was prompted to make a fly-in fly-out visit to my home town, which has now resulted in Chief Minister Natasha Fyles having to take back her race-baiting words and backflip on her vehemently held position, forcing her to create half-baked policy on the run.

Senators, I plead with you to help me save the lives of those I love and those I'm democratically elected to represent and whose lives we are all responsible for. I seek your bipartisan support to make my hometown community and vulnerable communities throughout the Northern Territory safer. If we can save one woman from becoming the next domestic violence or homicide statistic, we are winning. If we can prevent one child from being sexually abused and left with a venereal disease or internal physical and psychological scarring for life, that is one child. But I know we can do better than this.

The last few months have been distressing and traumatising for so very many, not just within my own family but for families throughout the Northern Territory. In the lead-up to Christmas, I was grateful to have the opportunity to spend the last few days of my cousin Regina Napaljarri France's life by her side in the palliative care unit of Alice Springs. My cousin, only one year older than I am, who never bore children of her own, loved and nurtured other children in our family whose own parents could not care for them because they were either dead, incarcerated or suffering from alcohol or substance abuse. My cousin lived her entire life in a town camp, and it is my firm belief that this life lived in a hellhole contributed to her bad health. But it was in the last few months, when alcohol was reintroduced in her town camp, that her health took a steep decline ending in her early death. She was no drinker, and nor did she smoke. Before the Intervention, she witnessed the early death of my uncle, her father, when one morning he failed to wake up after a long night of drinking. My uncle was not violent but a man who loved us all very deeply. He was, however, an alcoholic. My cousin's brother was the same. He was a quietly spoken man who always carried an affectionate, warm smile, but she witnessed his life end far too early because he too was powerless to the bottle.

My cousin's mother, left with heartbreak and ill health and regularly undergoing renal dialysis, now has the responsibility of raising the adopted granddaughter left behind. My cousin's adopted daughter, also my niece, had already lost three of her mothers, including her biological mother, before losing my cousin. In our Warlpiri kinship structure, your mother's sisters are also regarded as your own mothers. Her biological mother was killed in her mid-30s when she was mown down in an alcohol fuelled domestic violence attack by her father. One of her mother's sisters died of alcohol abuse at the age of 28. She simply drank herself to death in the same town camp, before the intervention. Another of her mothers was killed, as a passenger, in an alcohol related car crash. The driver crashed the car after her drunken husband punched her in the back of her head while she was driving. My cousin was the only one to die in that crash. My husband accompanied me while I identified her body in the morgue.

Our family remember all too clearly the horrific conditions in town camps before alcohol restrictions. So I could understand when my 42-year-old cousin told me on Christmas Day that she was at peace and happy to say goodbye to the world of the living. I could not be angry at her for wanting to leave us all behind. Life in her town camp had become absolutely unbearable again with alcohol flowing back in. So, when I speak to this bill and stand here as an Indigenous voice in parliament, I am deeply offended when it is suggested by others in this chamber that my actions are nothing more than political grandstanding. My cousin is now at peace, and my family is heartbroken, but my family is not the only family that is. The uncle of Alena Kukla, whose life was taken at the hands of her violent partner, along with her baby, told me he marks the day alcohol was introduced to the very same day that she was killed. So, again, I ask your support, in a bipartisan manner, my colleagues, to protect our most vulnerable Australians.

The bill will introduce elements specific to reducing alcohol consumption and related harm, applied in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012, which ceased in 2022. The bill will put in place alcohol restrictions that will include declaration of alcohol protected areas and the development of alcohol management plans, which will provide that supply of alcohol is regulated, mitigating illegal alcohol supply and providing a legal framework for prosecution.

When dealing with addiction, the first step to management and recovery is acknowledging there is a problem. And those that are subject to the effects of addiction in the Northern Territory—the whole community—have been crying out that we have a problem since the cessation of the measures and the lifting of alcohol restrictions in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act.

The bill makes provision for equitable consultation to take place in relation to alcohol protection measures to ensure that men, women, consumers of alcohol, nonconsumers of alcohol, addiction experts and the Northern Territory Liquor Commission are all involved. The introduction of a requirement for an expert committee to support the development of each alcohol management plan will provide that measures designed to reduce alcohol related harm and to improve the quality of life are realised, such as monitoring school attendance and rates of alcohol related assaults.

The need for the introduction of the bill has been demonstrated through the increased rates of crime, alcohol related domestic violence and alcohol related assaults. Alcohol related assaults in Alice Springs alone have risen from December 2021 to December 2022 by 54.6 per cent, and property damage has increased by 59.6 per cent.

The removal of income management measures of the cashless debit card has increased the availability of obtaining alcohol to those vulnerable to alcoholism, and there has not been sufficient analysis of the impact of the removal of this important measure, but we can see it through our own eyes.

The Australian government has a responsibility to ensure that the Northern Territory has consistency in law and order, and that punitive approaches are not taken by the Northern Territory government that do not address the broader context of addiction and alcohol related harm.

For a decade the Australian government has intensely invested in the Northern Territory to address significant levels of need, specifically to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal Territorians. The management of alcohol consumption and the reduction of alcohol related harm were not realised within this period of time. This bill will set a framework of accountability for alcohol management plans to be developed, with alcohol restrictions in place to protect our vulnerable communities.

I have developed this bill over several months in conjunction with community consultation with relevant stakeholders that include drug and alcohol services, Aboriginal health services, legal services, education institutions, businesspeople, community members both remote and in major towns, and town camp residents. Chief Minister Natasha Fyles sent me a letter just yesterday claiming that I had not consulted her. I reminded her of my letter dated from October outlining my intentions in the draft of this bill and extending an invitation to sit with me and to understand what this might entail. I've had no response to that correspondence.

My bill seeks to establish a federal and Territory government partnership to address alcohol related harm. The Territory government, which is predominantly dependent on federal funding, will have a role in overseeing the process of developing alcohol management plans, while the federal government will be responsible for approving those management plans and reviewing the measures through the Senate committee process and will have the power to revoke approvals of alcohol management plans should they demonstrate that they are not ensuring the safety of Territorians.

It is not good enough that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory requires the Prime Minister to step in, for them to realise that they got it dreadfully wrong—at the cost of lives lost and the devastation that addiction has unleashed on our communities. We are hurting, and it is disingenuous to provide ad hoc approaches and not take full responsibility for the sake of every Territorian. Senate colleagues, I'm asking you to take full responsibility with me.

I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for bringing on her private senator's bill, the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023, but also for expressing her own experiences with her family in Central Australia. I do think it's important that the Senate hear those stories. I guess, in a lot of respects, First Nations people across the country have stories of such experiences to share.

Mine began when I was in my 20s, and we wanted to put in place in Borroloola a call for an alcohol management plan. I remember trying to call a meeting of all our different language groups—the Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Marra and Gudanji peoples—and how the women, who were my aunties and my grandmothers, called the meeting because we wanted the alcohol to stop. We wanted the destruction and what we could see happening to our children to stop. So we had that meeting and it went well. People agreed, and we talked about it on local media to see if we could have those changes in our community. But the next night, when alcohol began to flow again, we got eaten alive. There is no doubt that the abuse that we experienced is something that I've never forgotten. The alcohol didn't stop, but the abuse continued, and certainly the retribution in terms of wanting to stand strong against it continued.

I spent the next 10 years looking after my mother after the domestic violence she experienced from her then partner, before she went on to renal failure and kidney disease. Then I took on my sister's children—her four children—because of the domestic violence and the alcohol issues she was facing. I remember receiving the phone call in Alice Springs to leave what I was then doing—working with the ABC. I went back to Darwin to take those children and to look after my sister, who needed time to recover. Those kids were aged from 18 months to 10 or 11 years of age, and I took them on. At the time I was reading in Darwin for the ABC news at 6 am in the mornings and getting up at 5 am, getting the kids up and getting someone to help me get them to school—as well as my own two children. I had to make sure that those children would know that there was a better way, that alcohol wasn't the way and that domestic violence wasn't the way.

So I'd leave my car with a neighbour so that that neighbour could then drive the six children to school when I was reading the quarter to eight news on ABC radio, and the kids would ring me from the car when I got off air. In the mornings I'd catch the bus—or a taxi because it was early, 5 am—and at about quarter past eight I'd talk to the kids on their way to school. I'd finish at around one o'clock or two o'clock, and then I'd go get the car by catching the bus to my neighbour's, and then I'd go and pick up the kids when they finished at school and take them home. I'd pick up my mother and my sister and cook dinner for everyone, and then I just fell into bed to get up again at 5 am the next day and do it all again. But that's what you do because you know that alcohol is a scourge, and you also know that domestic violence is rife. I still had a job as well to try and put food on the table to care for the kids. So we all have our stories.

Then there's my aunty who was smashed to smithereens by her partner because of alcohol. We stood by her bed for the next six months as she lay unconscious, being told that she was never going to come to life again. But as a family we stood around that bed, just holding her hands and massaging her legs while she lay in ICU. I firmly believed she was going to come through, no matter what the doctors said. She and I were born at the same time; she is only a few days older than me. But I was determined to stand by that bed and make sure she got through. And you know what? She did. Today she lives in Borroloola with no feet—they had to be amputated. She can't move her elbow because of the fractures that she received from the hits. Her left arm is okay—it's not that good—but it's better than her right arm. But we talk every day, and I'm incredibly grateful that she survived. We work with her children because her daughter has gone through domestic violence too. And her daughter's daughter has now been relocated with a good family living somewhere else just so that she has a chance.

My other sister, my cousin's sister, struggled with alcohol. Her six kids have been taken off her. I've taken three of the children, so we're raising an eight-year-old and nine-year-old twins just because we know they need a bed, to be fed and to be loved so that they have a good education and have access to a good school. So they live with us, and when I fly away my husband looks after them. He's a schoolteacher, and he tries his best to look after those three children. Sometimes my aunty comes up from Borroloola on the bush bus just to help him when I'm down here in Canberra.

So I know only too well, just like many First Nations people, that we look after our families and we care for them. It does not lessen, however, the importance of process and the importance of governments and the responsibility of governments and oppositions when it comes to policymaking. Whilst this private senator's bill has been brought forward by my colleague from the Northern Territory, I have to say to the Senate that the Northern Territory government is doing what we expect it to do. I say to the Senate that there has been enormous pressure applied to ensure that the Northern Territory government does what we know it is capable of doing within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, and that is to make the amendments that are required. Did they do it too late? Have they been real slow? I think we can all answer that. But they are doing it. It's going to be there. The bans we want will be in place on Wednesday, right across every area of the Northern Territory that we're talking about.

The difference here, senators, is that we've also, as members of government, had to look at this extremely closely in light of the history of the Northern Territory intervention and the sense of disempowerment that also occurred across the Northern Territory. I do hear what my colleagues are saying about those concerns with the town camps, but there are other things, senators, you also need to know about the concerns people had regarding that intervention.

I am such a firm believer in democracy in this country. I'm such a firm believer in the empowerment of people at every level, as flawed as we may be in our ability to make and enable others to have the power to stand up for themselves, we've got to always keep trying to get it right. To step in over the Northern Territory government a second time with a major intervention? Not after what we've gone through, after 15 years.

The stronger futures legislation was sunsetting. There was not one word in April last year. I asked the coalition government—and this is not to blame; this is just to put on the record—what are you doing? You are going to remove, after 15 years, a system people have been made to live under—right or wrong, good or bad—but how are you going to prepare them for exiting? How are you going to prepare people for the fact that this legislation, once it ends, removes all of these things? What are you doing? There was no response.

Then we get into government. Did we move quick enough? Did we do the things we needed to do? Goodness me, after nearly 10 years in opposition, there was a hell of a lot to learn in a couple of months. That's not an excuse. It's an explanation of the extraordinary amount of things we had to do. One of the first things that Marion Scrymgour, Linda Burney, Pat Dodson and I did was to urge the Northern Territory government in August to please have a look at their legislation, to ensure those bans were in place again. We did that. We did that in Garma and we did that in numerous phone calls. And, or course, we had so many other things to also do in that time period. Again, that's not an excuse. It's an explanation of timing.

The Northern Territory government can speak for itself, but I want to explain to the Senate why we have worked the way we have, because there is no way—certainly for Marion Scrymgour and I—that we would ever want to be setting up an intervention like that which occurred in 2007. But we will hold people accountable, irrespective of who is in government, as to how the processes is occurring. Dorrelle Anderson, an incredibly articulate and intelligent woman with skills that go beyond all that we could imagine here in regard to those relationships with the language groups of that region, is the right person to have as the Central Australian Regional Controller. And it was her report last week that made the Northern Territory government move to where it is today and enabled us, as the federal government, to provide the $250 million that we announced for Alice Springs and Central Australia.

But we also know, senators, that it's not just about alcohol. It never really is. It's always about what are we doing to enable people in our regional and remote areas to step up and stand up. We know that we have issues with health. We know that we have massive issues with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. And we must invest in those areas, even more so, to be able to work with the Alice Springs Hospital and to continue to work with Congress, which is the Aboriginal community controlled health organisation in Alice Springs that is currently working on so many levels, including in the FASD area. It's absolutely vital that part of the $250 million goes to that, because it impacts—and this Senate did an inquiry into FASD; please, Senators, I urge you to read that inquiry that we took across the country—young people, not just in Alice Springs but across the country. We talk about the issue of alcohol and other things impacting communities in Western Australia and Queensland, so have a look at what FASD is doing in those areas. It is not isolated.

We are also, as part of this, working with families with parental concerns, again on outstations. Dorelle Anderson is working on a number of the outstations around Alice Springs to ensure we can work with the families—specific families, because the Northern Territory police can identify which of the families actually need this support. And, for a broader, holistic approach, we know that we need to get the employment programs going in those communities surrounding Alice Springs—Yuendumu, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Santa Teresa, Mutitjulu to name just a few. We know that part of this $250 million has to be about ensuring that community development program where we're talking about jobs actually means jobs. We know now, even more so, that we need to see the runs on the board with that employment.

In conclusion, I ask you to see what the Northern Territory government is doing. This has been a traumatic time for the people of Alice Springs and the families of Alice Springs and the businesses of Alice Springs. But let me tell you that as a senator for the Northern Territory there is a better way, and we are doing the best that we can with that way. And I know you'll keep me accountable if that way does not work.

I rise to speak to the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023. I'm sure we've all seen and heard about the recent scenes in the Northern Territory, particularly in Alice Springs. I want to note that these things are happening not just in Alice Springs but in Queensland and parts of Western Australia. Senator Cash actually brought this to the chamber yesterday, about how this is it happening in my own state of Western Australia in the town of Laverton. So it's not an isolated issue. It is a concerning issue though.

There's an assumption in this place that this has risen as a direct result of the lapse of the measures of the Stronger Futures legislation. Whilst it might appear that way, it is actually a much deeper and much more complex issue, which, in fact, Senator McCarthy has already outlined. Alcohol bans will not address this. They will absolutely not address this. Too many First Nations people carry deep, unresolved and generational trauma. It's multilayered, multidimensional and complex in its manifestation, and alcohol is merely a coping mechanism for this trauma. It's about self-medicating. It's about coping. Many First Nations people have turned to alcohol because they have no other option. Some live remotely with no services or a lack of services available to them—or there are very long wait lists even if there is a service. Maybe, like many in this country, they simply do not have the money to see a professional to discuss what trauma is and the trauma that is being passed down on to us specifically through the generations since colonisation in this country. It is the truth-telling that I spoke about in this very chamber yesterday.

In fact, it's scientifically proven: it's called epigenetics. People need to be informed that this trauma spans over many generations in our communities. At its heart, that is exactly what is happening in Alice Springs and in the Northern Territory. It's the impact of colonisation that First Nations people carry with them every single day. It is the pain and it is the heartache. You see it on the faces of First Nations senators in this chamber, in fact—all of us—because, let me tell you, that weight gets enormously heavy. And, seeing the way our people are treated in this country, it gets even heavier. We carry that weight every day. We are constantly dealing with family members, friends, cousins, aunts and uncles that find themselves in vicious and oppressive cycles of incarceration as the end result of that. Let me tell you, that gets enormously heavy.

So if you want to talk about how we solve the issue in the long term—because that's what we're here for; we're here for the long game—progress with all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Build more public and affordable housing—the state of housing across this country and in remote Australia is disastrous. It's atrocious for a G20 country. Address the cost-of-living crisis. Raise the income support above the poverty line. My colleague in this chamber, Senator Rice, will tell you more and more about that. Raise the age of criminal responsibility in this country and stop incarcerating our babies. Implement the recommendations from the Bringing them home report and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. After 40 years, we are begging you to do this. Improve access to education and make it culturally appropriate. Make it bilingual, for God's sake. In some places, English is the third or fourth language. Improve mental health care and put it into Medicare. Fix the Medicare system more broadly, so that we have access to health services. Invest in justice reinvestment initiatives—and I'm talking about stopping funding for prisons; I'm not talking about shifting it for coordination. Stop funding the industry that is incarcerating people in this country. Progress the standalone First Nations plan to end violence against women and children that is designed and implemented by our women. That's not under a gender-equality framework; it's under our women and by our women. Fund First-Nations-led organisations who are on the ground in communities creating culturally safe places so our women can escape, be safe and also commence their healing journey.

Basically, this just means ensuring that people have their basic needs met and that their human rights are upheld in this country. The solutions are right here in front of you: it's changing the legislation and the regime that my people have lived in under this country. Whilst I hear members in this place talk about how bad the crisis is and I see the clickbait that's happening, we need to stop talking about the need for bans and interventions. I'm hearing crickets—crickets!—about long-term solutions to address the real cause behind this crisis. No-one is talking about that. Banning alcohol is merely a bandaid solution. It may work in the short term, but you can't have these bans in place forever. That will not actually address the underlying causes; we will continue not seeing primary prevention and it will not cease the intergenerational trauma. This look of 'intervention 2.0' will not solve these issues in the long term. So stop doing that.

This is a humanitarian crisis that began over 200 years ago. This is a crisis that stems from our denial of basic human rights in this country—housing, employment, education, health care, land and country. It's our self-determination, our connection to that country, our culture, our lore and our kinship, and being able to practice all of those. This bill's top-down approach fundamentally ignores the generational trauma—it's all absent from that. Dispossession, trauma and the oppression that are at the heart of this crisis continue to be the ongoing oppression that First Nations people face each and every day in this country.

We need this government to help us commit to long-term solutions that are self-determined, that are holistic and that are created by community, for community and with community, and with governments walking beside them. And this place needs to support those solutions. The government needs to invest in growing First Nations health and wellbeing—in our workforce, in particular—and capacity-building within communities for those prevention and health promotion programs, our mental health services, and, most importantly, our healing spaces. Communities are more than capable of taking the lead, but we have to let them. They know what's needed in their communities and we must stop doing the top-down approach: we have to start supporting and empowering them.

Our communities need access to culturally appropriate child care, education and employment, and chances to connect with their mob—to learn about and practice their culture, and to get back on country. They could learn about their role in the oldest continuing culture in the world. Let's just let that sink in for a minute, because I don't think that when everybody in this chamber stands every morning they actually realise that's what they're acknowledging: the oldest continuing living culture in the world—the power, strength and resilience that's in our blood. We have survived what has happened in this country. But we also need to heal, and it's not going to happen overnight.

I support all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart: treaty, truth-telling and Voice. They will progress the healing process in this nation. We need to understand that those long-term solutions have been talked about for generations. There was the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody—and we have our own commissioner sitting here in the chamber, Senator Dodson. There was the Bringing them home report, that sat on the shelves of governments from both sides of this chamber for decades, collecting dust. First Nations people in this country—if you haven't looked it up—are hurting. There is the pain that you see on their faces and also the strength—because we are strong. We can't continue to hurt people through developing legislation in this place; this bill does nothing except provide a bandaid solution that won't address 200-plus years of trauma, which in fact have led us to the place where we are right now.

I want to finish with a final message. There's a wonderful lady from a remote community called Warakurna. Her name is Aunty Daisy Ward. Aunty Daisy came to see me in my electorate office in Perth, and she told me what's happening in her community of Warakurna and in surrounding communities—Blackstone, Jameson and others. Aunty Daisy's message to me was that she wanted me to come and sit in her country, on the women's law grounds of her country, not just to speak but to listen—and, importantly, for them to be heard. She wanted me to listen to the stories of what women and children are enduring there and also to the solutions that she has, which are long term. She reached across the table, grabbed my hand and said: 'I want you to walk with me on this journey. I don't want you to go back to parliament and make the legislation or laws in this country that override my law, where you can't sit on my country, you can't listen to my story, you can't come and hear the pain in my heart and you can't help me to heal—because that's what I need you to do. And I need you to take this message back to the parliament, that we want ministers, we want parliamentarians, not coming in and telling us what to do but coming and sitting and listening to our culture, listening to our law, listening to our strength and to our solutions for us.'

I take that message from Aunty Daisy very seriously because she is a law woman in her country. She is a survivor of violence. She is a survivor of the stolen generation. But she doesn't see herself as just a survivor. She sees herself as a change maker. She has the ability to come and sit with me and talk to me about what's important. But she also wants to elevate the voices of women in her community. So she wants to take me by the hand and take me back into that community to learn that each community is different, that each person is different and that we cannot, in this place, continue to have a top-down approach which oppresses people in this country. And that's what this bill will do.

I am very honoured to be able to stand in this place and follow the three preceding senators, who have spoken very passionately and with great empathy. They understand the issues and have been deeply committed to improving the lives of Aboriginal people, particularly in their own committees, for a very, very long time. I have known them all for a very, very long time.

I first engaged with Senator Cox, my fellow Western Australian senator, probably 10 or 12 years ago, I think, when Senator Cox was working in the health department. She was someone who was really dedicated to working around the health area and dedicated to improving the lives of people who were obviously suffering significant health issues and needing support. I've known Senator Nampijinpa Price for a long time as well. We worked together before I was here in this place to see policies such as the cashless debit card and other initiatives, such as key employment initiatives that would drive employment outcomes for Aboriginal people across the country. I have followed Senator McCarthy and her work over a long period of time and now here in this place. I genuinely mean it. It is a good debate we're having here. I think it is a genuine debate, and contributions so far have brought forward some very, very important issues.

It is also my honour to stand in support of this private senators' bill, the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023, brought forward quite sincerely by Senator Nampijinpa Price. The way that she has approached this issue that she is addressing through this bill is something to be commended. It's not just a bolt out of the blue. It's not just a reaction to the front-and-centre issue that we have right now that has been brought about because of the increased media attention that is now on Alice Springs, in particular, and the town camps that surround it. This is an issue that has been a long time in the making, and Senator Nampijinpa Price first raised it in her first speech and indicated very early on in her term, in July, that she would be bringing on this bill. She worked on it. She consulted and engaged with the community across the Territory to bring it forward because it was filling a gap. This bill seeks to address that gap. It is obvious that it needs to be filled. It has been, as I said, a long time in the making.

The Territory government have ultimately had 10 years of successive governments to be aware and be ready for the sunsetting of the legislation that was enabling the restriction of alcohol and other things to be in place. Their failure to address that, their failure to show any real action on that, is what has required this bill to be brought here today and is why we are debating it.

My first engagement with the issue of alcohol restrictions is also not just some recent bolt out of the blue. In fact, in 2008, I was involved in supporting the towns of Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek in seeing alcohol restrictions brought into those communities. The coroner of Western Australia at the time, Alastair Hope, had delivered a report that looked at the spate of suicides that were occurring across, in particular, the western parts of the Kimberley. There were 22 suicides, many young people, in particular, and many women—people who are very vulnerable. He delivered this over-200-page report that was damning of all levels of government and successive governments of many brands, if you like, and a response was needed.

There were some really powerful people—mainly women, I've got to say, and grandmothers in particular—across these communities who were standing up and saying, 'Enough is enough. We've got to do something about this.' I think of people like June Oscar, Emily Carter and Maureen Carter, who were supported by Harry Yungabun, Patrick Davies and many others across the community who were desperate to see some controls on alcohol in the town of Fitzroy Crossing. They successfully lobbied the liquor commissioner, the racing and gaming commissioner, in Western Australia to impose restrictions on alcohol sales in Fitzroy Crossing. I remember seeing that through the news. I wasn't involved directly at that time, but I remember seeing it.

I went to a conference in Kalgoorlie, and Emily Carter got up and spoke about the success of their campaign. She wore a scarf around her head. Not knowing her very well, I assumed that maybe she had gone through chemotherapy or something, because she'd lost a lot of her hair. I thought maybe she was in remission from cancer or was having some sort of treatment, and I didn't ask any questions. I later learnt that she'd lost her hair because of the stress of the fight in that community to see those restrictions brought in—just the sheer stress, the pressure that she was under from people in her community and the threats she'd had. I learnt that she'd had her own life threatened because of her advocacy for her community, to see these restrictions brought in. The tremendous pressure that was on her had obviously had a material impact upon her life.

As a result of those alcohol restrictions, things started to turn around in that community. School attendance went up. There was safety in the community. It was by no means a panacea for the issues and the problems that were occurring, but it was delivering tangible results. This is when I started to get involved, because the people in Halls Creek didn't have that same coordinated leadership across the community. So I got on board and worked to help them get the same level of restrictions that they had in Fitzroy Crossing. In Fitzroy Crossing it was limited; you could only buy takeaway alcohol which was capped at, I think, about two per cent alcohol, so anything above that was not permitted to be sold within the town. That of course significantly limited the ability of the harm to continue. Halls Creek were experiencing much the same issues as Fitzroy Crossing, and they were desperate to see those changes.

I remember we'd arranged for the Premier of Western Australia at the time to come up and witness for himself what was going on in the town. They planned to be there on a Thursday, which was quite opportune because that's the day after the welfare payments hit, and Thursday was always known as the big day—the big party day—when the town would really turn on its head. The police commissioner of Western Australia at the time called Halls Creek 'a war zone', and he was much criticised for saying that, but it was the truth. When the welfare payments hit and the grog was flowing, that's when there would be the calamity and the turmoil in that community.

Unfortunately, the Premier's schedule was changed. We were disappointed because he wouldn't actually be there to witness firsthand what it's like on a Thursday and a Friday, just days after the payments had hit. He was coming instead on the Sunday. It is typical that by Sunday things have already started to quieten down. So I arranged for a camera and a small film crew to go there and actually film it on a Thursday.

I used to be a youth worker for a long time and I used to be involved in things like schoolies. I worked at schoolies on the Gold Coast. It's a time of revelry and partying. Obviously we've seen over the years some images that have come out of those events. They can be quite frightening to see. So I got up there and arranged with the police to be able to travel with them on an ordinary Wednesday or Thursday night in this community. I wanted to film it so that we could show the Premier exactly what it was like and so that he wouldn't see the sanitised version of a Sunday or a Monday.

I saw on that night—an ordinary Wednesday or Thursday night in Halls Creek—the devastating impact that alcohol was having. We saw kids roaming the streets at one o'clock in the morning. They were safer out on the streets than they were back in their homes.

I was with the police. We went to a place called Dinner Camp, which is not far from the pub. It's where a lot of the itinerants stay when they come from out of town and are in the pubs at night. One gentleman was run over. This was an ordinary Thursday night. His leg was shaped like a Z. His femur had broken and he was taken to hospital. This was all filmed. I was able to show the Premier when he eventually got up there what an ordinary night looks like. As a result of that they put in restrictions on the sale of alcohol in Halls Creek. Again, it transformed that community.

Over time it has been demonstrated that alcohol restrictions alone are not the answer, because there are other ways that people can access alcohol. Trade, like sly grogging, takes place, so other things are needed. I agree with the presentations by my colleagues who say that these measures alone are not satisfactory and are not the answer to or the panacea for the issues. By bringing forward this bill Senator Nampijinpa Price is introducing effective measures that go beyond just the obvious thing to do, which would be to bring in restrictions on alcohol. The bill provides governance and some more rigour over the delivery of programs and services in these communities, particularly obviously in the Northern Territory, that are necessary to be able to bring about the change that is necessary.

As I've said, this is a result of 10 years of failure of the Northern Territory governments. They have failed to prepare, plan and put in place the necessary programs and measures that would provide a future, particularly for the young people, across these communities. Unfortunately, all we've seen so far from the federal government though is just a bolt-out-of-the-blue response. As soon as it gets in the media and gets a bit of profile Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, is there. He flew to Alice Springs and made a response. This has been an issue that Senator Nampijinpa Price has been calling for change on and trying to address not just since she has been elected to here. I know that she has been an advocate for change in this area for a very long time.

It just seems that this government is focused on doing the things that may be popular or driven by those in the inner city, elites or academic concepts, rather than actually listening to the people on the ground. A good example of that is the abolition of the cashless debit card. Just because some in the inner cities believe it is a punitive process or is ineffective the government did not listen to the voices of those in the community. Now, since the abolition of the cashless debit card, we've seen towns across Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland where things have gone backward. We saw yesterday on the front page of the Kalgoorlie Miner the President of the Shire of Laverton speak out, saying how things have gone backward in their community and how the liquor store there had had to impose restrictions and close its doors because of the increased availability of cash driving the consumption of alcohol.

I've spoken to people in the east Kimberley and Kununurra. I've heard that it's going backwards there as well. The early stories that are coming out are that there is an increased number of youth that are roaming the streets because of the fact that their parents have got extra access to alcohol. Their homes are not safe, so they're safer on the streets. Kids, of course, left to their own devices in that regard, without supervision, are causing trouble in these communities.

I thank very much Senator Nampijinpa Price for bringing on this bill and I encourage the Senate to support it, because enough is enough. We've got to have real action to tackle some of these issues.

I'd first like to express my sympathy and my respect to Senator Price, to Senator McCarthy and to others in this chamber who have had horrendous experiences, and I would like to pay my respects and sympathy to you and your families and to all the people across this country who have experienced these hideous losses as a result of issues of alcohol abuse, family and domestic violence, and broader community violence.

There are lived experiences across this chamber akin to Senator Price, Senator McCarthy and Senator Cox, and we all believe that these situations must end. I don't think there's much dissent here from the idea that we need to stop the situation. We need to find the solutions. The difference is how we look at the solution. What we believe the solution to be is the fundamental difference that I'm hearing this chamber. As Senator McCarthy has laid out quite clearly and concisely this morning, the planning for the sunset date of the previous Stronger Futures legislation was not undertaken. That is not to apportion blame, but it does shine a light on some of the issues that I have seen firsthand having worked in the NT for 10 years, including two years in Alice Springs. The structures we have in place are insufficient to address the deep community challenges and the deep community loss and pain.

But where do we go from here? We can stand and yell at each other across the chamber. We can pick up our own individual interest areas, be that age of criminal responsibility, prisons or whatever else, and they all have value. But they are all symptoms. They are not the root cause, and that's where we need to go. That's what we need to deal with in this situation.

We need to heed the stories and the experiences that we have heard across this chamber and the stories and the experiences that we have heard over the last number of weeks, number of years and, I would say, number of decades. This crisis is right now, but it is a crisis that keeps rearing its head year after year, decade after decade. We need better solutions because the First Nations people of Alice Springs and across the whole of this country deserve so much more. They deserve greater respect. They deserve better solutions. They deserve a greater say in how issues are dealt with and how solutions are found. We must do better.

I stand here as a non-Indigenous person, as a person who heeds the call of the Uluru Statement from the Heart to walk alongside. That is what I seeks to do: to walk alongside. I'm an ally, I'm a supporter and I have some awareness. I spent a long time living and working in the Northern Territory, including a couple of years in Alice Springs working at the Central Land Council. I also worked for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service, and I was the last-standing operations manager of CDEP before the federal government got rid of it.. For all the reasons that were given, and we hear them time and time again, I can assure you that when the program ended, yes, there were some rorts and there were some challenges, but the vast majority of that program was doing some fantastic things in community, with community, for community.

This is the situation that I have experienced. I come from a research and policy background. I see it, and have been seeing it for decades: the solutions are designed in Canberra or in some glass house somewhere, and guess what? They don't work on the ground because they are not designed in a manner that is going to work on the ground—unless you have the input of the people whom the situation affects directly. From my experience in research, in policy and in social services programs, I've seen stuff that works and I've seen stuff which doesn't. The fundamental piece, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other social science, research and policy people, is working with community to start where the problem starts, to start with the issues start and not to look at the symptoms. And that's what we're looking at here: alcohol is a symptom; abuse is a symptom. These things are terrible, terrible symptoms, but that's what they are. We need to be mindful that in addressing any issue we understand what the root cause of it is. Only then can we chart a pathway to the answer.

In my opinion, the federal government legislating alcohol bans is not the way. We have seen an intervention in the Northern Territory previously, and I know the pain and the suffering that went on as part of that intervention. Interfering in people's lives, leaping in from a great height to tell people how to live their lives—it's not the answer. It might help you with some symptoms along the way for a short time, but it's not the answer. The answer is to understand the problem and to talk with the local community. That is what we need to do. As Senator McCarthy spoke so deeply about this morning, it requires a long-term approach with community. In my experience with short-term commitments, a couple of years here or there—what we need is generational change of policy and generational change of intervention of a different kind that works with community.

I do appreciate the Senator's deep experience and concern for the Northern Territory, and Alice Springs in particular. I really do. In everything, we need to focus on how those families are coping. We need to stem the violence. We need to stop all the horrendous situations that we're hearing about. There needs to be a two-pronged approach—there needs to be the here and now, of course, but there needs to be a long-term solution. I agree that we have to keep putting women and children first—we need to put their safety first and the family's safety first. I don't disagree with the problems we're facing, and we must fix them, but this bill and federal legislation are not necessary. The Northern Territory is already bringing forward legislation in their parliament so that the town councils and their communities revert to dry zones. The Northern Territory recently made several announcements regarding alcohol restrictions. They've demonstrated that they are taking responsibility, and they have the power to act because they are the responsible layer of government for this particular intervention of alcohol bans.

With some of those bans, it's going back to pretty much how it was before. Even Senator Price told the ABC on Monday that this bill was pretty much a carbon copy of what the Northern Territory is proposing. So it does beg the question: why are we doing it if they're already doing it? If it's a carbon copy then it's probably not needed. If they are the responsible layer of government then it is for them to do it. The role of the Commonwealth on this particular issue is surely only when that fails, and that's not the case. The federal parliament overriding the Territory's ability to legislate for itself is not the cooperative environment that we want in this country. It is not how we wish to legislate—over the top of those bodies that are actually responsible for various issues. I see the departmental officials shaking their heads, which might be a little inappropriate in this chamber. I believe that federal legislation will only disempower local people. They need to have their voices heard and they need to be negotiated with and engaged with in a deep, meaningful and understanding way.

This bill from Senator Price is largely the same as the stronger futures legislation. Apart from modern drafting changes, there are two differences, from what we can see: the delegation of power from the minister to an agency secretary or member of the senior executive, and the inclusion of a review by a Senate committee at 12 months and then every three years after that. But alcohol is only part of the solution. The Northern Territory and Australian governments are both working on the underlying causes of this community unrest, which, as I say, we need to get past. Obviously, we need to deal with the consequences—we need to deal with the issues that are bubbling up—but we also need to dig down to the root causes so that we can have a genuine and meaningful response that will not just continue intervention and bans but actually start to build a stronger community and get a better answer.

Senator Price's bill refers to an NT licensing commission, which is a body that doesn't exist. That may well be just an error in drafting. It makes the minister responsible for approving alcohol management plans that the communities develop. This approach would ultimately mean that the decisions on alcohol management plans are made in Canberra and not in the communities of the Northern Territory. This is in contrast to the approach announced by the Northern Territory. They are proposing that community alcohol plans be approved by the independent NT Director of Liquor Licensing. They would then be voted on by the communities themselves. Surely having the communities involved is what is critical? To further disempower these communities only leaves us at risk of further disempowerment. We need community solutions. We need the right people in the right place to find the right answers. I believe the Voice to Parliament will put us on a pathway to those better solutions—to a place where we can look to making amends for the hundreds of years of oppression, to freeing up the system to enable the voice of First Nations people to be truly heard. 'Intervention', 'overseeing', 'oversight'—all of these words bounce around. Fundamentally, the conversation needs to be had with the community. The conversation needs to be deeper than just what happened yesterday or the day before or what has happened in the last 12 months. The conversation needs to go deeper. We need to ask the questions; we need to find the answers. We need to empower the community and we need to walk alongside that community to find the solutions.

Debate interrupted.

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023.

Senator Hanson, are you seeking to speak on this motion for rearrangement?

Sorry, I missed the first motion that was put forward and I'd like to clarify—

The Minister for Finance's motion for the exemption of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill?

Yes. I just want it recorded that the Greens oppose that motion. Obviously, I'm not going to call a division, but I would like it on the record that the Greens are very strongly in opposition to the cut-off order for that bill.

Question agreed to.

I rise to make a contribution on the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 and to indicate the opposition's position in relation to this bill, which is that we will be supporting it.

This bill is designed to establish a consistent approach across the provisions of the Migration Act, as well as the Migration Regulations 1994, in relation to sentencing for offences. The opposition understands the need for this bill, which follows the decision of the full Federal Court of Australia in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs. In that case, the Federal Court relevantly held that, in effect, an aggregate sentence—a sentence for more than one offence—imposing a term of imprisonment does not in and of itself constitute a substantial criminal record within the meaning given by section 501(7) of the Migration Act and, in particular, section 501(7)(c), even in the circumstances, as they were in the Pearson case, where the sentence is to an aggregate maximum term of imprisonment of four years and three months in respect of 10 offences. The court arrived at this conclusion having considered the purpose of the mandatory cancellation provision in section 501(3)(a) to be reserved for the most serious offences, noting that an aggregate sentence might be arrived at after conviction of a series of lesser offences and taking into account the definition of a sentence as including any form of determination of the punishment of an offence, as well as the specific use of the singular and in the relevant definitions.

The opposition will always be supportive of sensible legislative changes that protect the national interest, and we support the clear intention of this bill to confirm the long held understanding that aggregate sentences can be taken into account for all relevant purposes under the Migration Act. We have been consistent about this, and this approach was on display also yesterday when we lent our support to the government in redesignating the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country. This was obviously a very significant error by the government. This remains a very important pillar of Australia's border protection framework, and, while it's difficult to believe that something so significant could simply be overlooked, we nonetheless undertook to support the government, in the national interest, and for that to be redesignated.

However, in supporting this bill and noting our support for the redesignation of Nauru yesterday, I want to foreshadow that when we get to the committee stage I intend to move an amendment on behalf of the opposition which would further strengthen the character test by providing the minister with additional grounds to consider visa cancellation when someone fails that test. In outlining the reasons behind this amendment, I want to state again at the outset that the coalition will always support sensible policy changes to strengthen our laws to protect Australians, but we recognise that here there is an opportunity for the government to strengthen them even further.

We've always supported a strong approach to ensuring that visa holders in Australia uphold and respect the laws of this country, and that they should be subject to the character test to enter and remain in Australia. If a noncitizen breaks the trust of being allowed into Australia by being found guilty and convicted of certain serious offences, and if they pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community, then they clearly do not pass the character test. So they should be considered for a visa refusal or cancellation.

We strongly believe that holding an Australian visa is a privilege that should be denied to those who pose a threat to the safety of Australians. We have a very proud record in government of taking strong actions to protect the Australian community from violent noncitizens who have committed offences in our country. When we were in government, we refused or cancelled over 10,000 visas under the character provisions of the Migration Act. Before the last election, we committed to taking further action to strengthen these provisions and to equip the relevant minister with the additional grounds to consider cancellation of a person's visa. These amendments passed the lower house in the previous term, on 16 February 2022, in the form of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. Notably, the now Prime Minister voted to support this legislation, as did the now immigration minister and home affairs minister. So I don't anticipate there should be any problems with Labor senators supporting these amendments today, because the amendments are consistent with a bill their colleagues voted for in the House of Representatives and which they said they supported at the time.

These amendments will provide an additional objective ground to consider refusal or discretionary cancellation of a visa under section 501 of the Migration Act where a person has been convicted of a serious crime, but does not meet the current substantial criminal record definition in subsection 501(7) of the Migration Act. These amendments do not in any way seek to undermine the courts or their role. Rather, they create a new ground for failing the character test based on the seriousness of the offence, which in turn is determined by the maximum sentence able to be imposed by the relevant states and territories. This will establish a new designated offences ground in the character test. A designated offence is an offence committed in Australia or in a foreign country, punishable by at least a maximum sentence of no less than two years imprisonment. It involves, for example: violence or the threat of violence against a person; the non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature; the breaching of an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person; the use of or possession of a weapon; or the procurement or assistance in anyway of the commission of one of these designated offences. These amendments have been very well thought out, and, importantly, they ensure that convictions for low-level crimes that neither cause nor contribute to a person's bodily harm or a person's mental health, whether temporarily or permanently, will not fall within the scope of a designated offence while also ensuring that any offence involving family violence is indeed included.

As Australians, we should absolutely celebrate the diverse communities that make up our great country and, of course, seek to welcome people here on all types of visas. I firmly believe, however, that all senators would agree that a noncitizen who has been convicted of serious offences is not a fit and proper person to remain in Australia. There should be no loopholes for sentencing leniency, and this amendment addresses situations where sentencing discounts have been given to serious offenders as a result of, for example, a plea bargain, or where serious violent offending is sentenced below the current visa cancellation threshold. These sensible amendments will give the minister extra powers to be able to consider the factors in relation to the nature of the conviction, any sentencing applied and countervailing considerations before deciding whether or not to exercise the discretionary power under section 501 of the Migration Act to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa. The minister will have greater scope to determine if someone has breached the character test in deciding whether to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa. It would not dictate the outcome of the exercise of that discretion.

Our amendments will ensure the character test aligns directly with community expectations that noncitizens who are convicted of offences such as murder, sexual assault or aggravated burglary will not be permitted to enter or remain in the Australian community. The government is right to take action in this bill to ensure consistency in the Migration Act provisions with regard to sentencing, but we believe that our amendment is complementary to those changes that the government is also seeking and that it would only enhance the ability of the minister to make cancellation decisions in the national interest. I commend the amendment to senators, which I will formally move in the committee stage.

The Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 was introduced extremely hastily to the Senate yesterday. It wasn't listed on the draft program this week, and this really is an indecent level of haste by this government.

If passed—and I say 'if passed', but I should probably say 'when passed', because we know that the Labor and Liberal parties are going to collude to get this bill through—it will make aggregate criminal sentences, which are sentences that take into account multiple offences to impose a single total period of imprisonment, as a legal basis for the mandatory cancellation of visas, including protection visas. The bill is designed, quite clearly and explicitly, to circumvent the decision in December last year in Pearson versus the Minister for Home Affairs, where the full court of the Federal Court of Australia ruled that mandatory visa cancellations on the basis of aggregate criminal sentences totalling 12 months imprisonment or more were unlawful.

The Pearson ruling was a much-needed step towards a fair and just immigration system that recognises the importance of individual circumstances. The ruling ensured that mandatory visa cancellations were only imposed for the most serious offences and not for aggregate offences that do not meet the 12-month threshold. However, as we've seen repeatedly in this parliament over the last decade and more under previous Liberal governments, the current government clearly does not appreciate the courts interfering in its application of the god-like powers under section 501 of the Migration Act with inconvenient principles such as the rule of law. Even without the bill before us today, provisions within section 501 explicitly exclude natural justice. The presumption of innocence, for example, a fundamental principle of the rule of law, is upended—that is, if the minister reasonably suspects that a person doesn't pass the character test then it is actually on that person to prove otherwise. Another fundamental rule of law that these powers trample on is the principle of double jeopardy. That's because after serving a sentence, having been convicted for a crime, a person will be punished again for the same crime by being deported from Australia and having their visa cancelled.

So Labor might come in here and argue that it's fixing an inconsistency in the legislation, but what they're really doing is formalising injustice in this country by providing their minister with more powers to circumvent and veto principles of natural justice. The minister already has discretionary powers that can be used to cancel the visas of people convicted of sexual offences against minors—regardless of sentencing, I might add—and against people who harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia. These powers can also be used against people who damage or threaten damage to property belonging to, in the possession of or used by the person. Not only can these powers be used against sexual and domestic violence offenders the government is, with the previous government, often crowing about how many visas it has stripped from people for those kinds of offences. So this bill, in effect, further automates powers that are currently discretionary, without any consideration of the circumstances.

In the case of Pearson versus the Minister for Home Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia surmised that because the parliament didn't explicitly make provision for aggregate sentences to be a trigger for visa cancellations then its intention must be that section 501(3A) powers would only capture serious offending and not an aggregation of small sentences for lesser, minor offences. The court noted in its decision, 'Of course, nothing would have prevented the minister from exercising his discretion pursuant to section 501(2) or (3) to cancel her visa should he have been satisfied that she did not pass the character test.' But the government is now letting the court know that, no, it was in fact just a legislative oversight.

This is the first migration bill that the Labor Party has introduced into the parliament since it won government last year. Labor promised to restore human rights obligations in the Migration Act.

Labor also promised to address the circumstances of the over 30,000 people who are currently in Australia on temporary protection visas and transition them onto a pathway to permanent protection. Those are the kinds of things that should have been contained in Labor's first migration bill of its new government. But, no, we are facing a bill that is straight out of Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison's playbook here.

Yesterday, Minister Watt had to come in here and defend the designation of Nauru as an offshore processing country when what he really should have been doing was coming in here and saying that the government is going to bring to Australia the very small number of people who remain on Nauru and look after them here. Obviously the Greens think they should be kept here and offered resettlement here and provided a pathway to citizenship. Even under Labor's policy they could be brought here and looked after and supported in Australia while they are waiting third country resettlement. That's what Minister Watt should have been here explaining to the Senate yesterday that the government were going to do. But instead, sadly, we find ourselves debating a bill that could have been introduced by Mr Dutton or Mr Morrison.

Labor's national platform, at page 124, says:

Labor believes the Refugee Convention plays a critical role in Australian law. Referring to the Refugee Convention in the Migration Act 1958 is good legislative practice.

It commits Labor to:

… reintroduce the appropriate references to the Refugee Convention into the Migration Act 1958.

The fact that this bill is the first proposed legislative reform to the Migration Act is telling and concerning. It will bolster powers that have already harmed many of the most disadvantaged members of our communities, including refugees and people who are seeking asylum and victims-survivors of family violence. These powers already expose vulnerable people to the most severe consequences, including indefinite or arbitrary detention or being forced to return to harm. These powers will, and do, tear families apart.

This bill, as with the existing powers under section 501 of the Migration Act, will disproportionately affect New Zealanders. I note here that New Zealanders comprise nearly half of all visa cancellations in Australia. In New Zealand, the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Ms Ardern, repeatedly called Australia out on the exercise of these powers.

One of Labor's immigration policies was a general commitment to do better by New Zealand and New Zealanders living in Australia on subclass 444 visas, which are temporary visas without any time limitations. They promised to do that so New Zealanders can remain permanent temporary residents who can live here indefinitely. They pay taxes in this country. They work here. They live here. They build lives here. They should have access to all of the rights and social safety nets that come with permanent residency and citizenship.

The New Zealand Prime Minister has very clearly said to Australia, 'Do not deport your people and your problems.' But, despite Labor's election commitment and frequent posturing on this issue in opposition, unfortunately we have got a situation where this legislation, the first proposed reform of the Migration Act post the election and post the formation of a new Labor government, is to provide additional powers to deport New Zealanders and many other people to the countries of their birth or where they hold citizenship, regardless of whether they have any family or other support here in Australia or where they are being deported to.

For the around 100 people who had their visas returned after the Pearson decision and were released from immigration detention over the Christmas period, it's been a rollercoaster ride. It's been a rollercoaster ride that I wouldn't wish on any person. This bill, unfortunately, is an abrogation of moral responsibility. It's a breach of fundamental human rights. It continues the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in this country that we saw under the Liberal Party and that now, clearly, many Australians are bracing themselves for under the Labor Party. We need a charter of rights in Australia—and we desperately need it. We're the only liberal democracy in the world that doesn't have some form of charter or bill of rights. It is time that the rights and freedoms of the Australian people were enshrined in a charter or a bill of rights, so that that can provide a defence against the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in this country.

The ACTING DEPUTY PR ESIDENT: If there are no further contributions, I'll call the minister.

I thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 will amend the Migration Act 1958. Let's be very clear: this bill is about keeping Australians safe. It's also about clarifying something in legislation that has been a well-understood bipartisan principle, underpinning Australian migration law, for a very long period of time, which was recently called into question as a result of a court decision that occurred just before Christmas.

The amendments in this bill will make it clear that for the purposes of the Migration Act, including determining whether a person has a substantial criminal record for the character test, it is irrelevant whether a sentence or imprisonment was imposed on that person for one offence or two or more offences. It provides the most appropriate mechanism for the government to detain those individuals whose visas were previously cancelled on the basis of sentences for more than one offence and proceed with their removal from Australia.

To give an example of what this bill will help clarify, a person who is sentenced for a term of imprisonment of 10 years for committing a violent offence would be found to have a substantial criminal record, under the current law, and would be liable for mandatory cancellation of their visa; whereas, in the absence of this legislation being passed, if that person were convicted for 15 years on the basis of two offences they would not be subject to mandatory cancellation, simply because that sentence was in respect of more than one offence. That is, clearly, not what the Australian people would expect from their parliament, and that is what we are seeking to change through this legislation.

The bill does not change or expand the circumstances in which aggregate sentences are considered for all relevant purposes of the Migration Act. This bill simply confirms the long-held bipartisan understanding that aggregate sentences can be taken into account for all relevant purposes under the Migration Act. This bill will also retrospectively amend the Migration Act to validate past decisions and actions that have been rendered invalid on the basis of the judgement in the Pearson case, which is the case I referred to where the decision was handed down just before Christmas. This is important to enable those decisions, which were taken to protect the Australian community, to stand. In this respect, the decisions made under the powers of the Migration Act will not change as a consequence of this bill. In fact, the decisions undertaken will be in a manner consistent with the government's long-held understanding and practice.

Just before finalising, I must take issue with some of the things that Senator McKim said on behalf of the Greens. As would be expected, the Greens have used this as an opportunity to have a go at Labor and to try to pretend that this bill is about some attack on human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The types of individuals who will be affected by this legislation have been convicted of some of the most serious offences under Australian criminal law. It's about people who have committed serious sexual offences, kidnapping offences and a range of other very serious offences.

To try to paint those sorts of people as deserving respect for their human rights at the expense of the Australian people is certainly not something that the Australian government supports. I'm surprised, frankly, that the Greens are questioning whether those are the kinds of people who are right to remain in this country. Of course, powers that rest in the minister to cancel someone's visa need to be exercised carefully. They need to be exercised compassionately, but we make no apologies for ensuring that the minister of the day has the power to cancel the visas of people who have been convicted of some of the most serious offences imaginable under Australian law. Again, it might be good for cheap shots from the Greens to try to pretend that this bill is something that it is not, but this bill is about protecting the Australian people from those who have committed serious offences—not just minor offences, but very serious offences—while in Australia. If the Greens want to defend that kind of behaviour, that is a matter for them.

This bill deserves support from all parts of this chamber, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question is that the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 be read a second time.

As I foreshadowed in my second reading speech on this bill, the opposition supports this legislation. We recognise the importance of it, following the decision of the full Federal Court in the Pearson case, and I agree with the minister that this is a longstanding bipartisan position in relation to aggregate sentences. It's important that the original intent of the parliament in legislating these provisions be reflected by updating the legislation, given the court case.

Having said that, we believe this is also an opportunity to even further extend the protections that Australians have against people on visas who commit violent offences. Consistent with the bill that was debated in the House in February last year, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021, introduced by the former government and supported at the time by the then Labor opposition, we believe that the minister should have additional powers. It will not be compulsory for the minister to exercise these powers; it will be up to the judgement of the minister. But it will widen the scope of the minister's power to protect Australians from people who commit very serious crimes but receive shorter sentences than are currently captured by the act.

To be clear about the style of the offences that will be captured, they include violence, or the threat of violence, against a person; non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature; breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person; using or possessing a weapon; and procuring, or assisting in any way in the commission of any of these designated offences. On any reading and any plain understanding of the law, I think all Australians would agree that these are very serious offences, and it should be an option for the minister for immigration to cancel the visas of people who commit these offences or to refuse an application for a visa for someone who has committed these offences to come to this country.

We'll be moving this amendment. In doing so I note that the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister, the now Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the now Minister for Home Affairs all voted for this in the lower house, so I don't anticipate there will be problems from Labor senators in supporting these amendments here today, which will only naturally extend the powers that they're seeking to retain for the minister. With that, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1807:

(1) Page 7 (after line 33), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Strengthening the character test

Migration Act 1958

1 Before subsection 5C(1)

Insert:

Character concern

2 After paragraph 5C(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) the non citizen has been convicted of a designated offence (see subsections (3) to (7)); or

3 Before subsection 5C(2)

Insert:

Substantial criminal record

4 At the end of section 5C

Add:

Designated offences general

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a designated offence is an offence against a law in force in Australia, or a foreign country, in relation to which the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) one or more of the physical elements of the offence involves:

(i) violence, or a threat of violence, against a person (see subsections (4) and (5)); or

(ii) non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, including (without limitation) sexual assault and the non-consensual commission of an act of indecency or sharing of an intimate image; or

(iii) breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person; or

(iv) using or possessing a weapon (as defined by subsection (6)); or

(v) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv); or

(vi) inducing the commission of an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv), whether through threats or promises or otherwise; or

(vii) being in any way (directly or indirectly) knowingly concerned in, or a party to, the commission of an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv); or

(viii) conspiring with others to commit an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv);

(b) for an offence against a law in force in Australia—the offence is punishable by:

(i) imprisonment for life; or

(ii) imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than 2 years; or

(iii) imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than 2 years;

(c) for an offence against a law in force in a foreign country—if it were assumed that the act or omission constituting the offence had taken place in the Australian Capital Territory:

(i) the act or omission would have constituted an offence (the Territory offence) against a law in force in that Territory; and

(ii) the Territory offence would have been punishable as mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i), (ii) or (iii).

Designated offences violence aga inst a person

(4) For the purposes of subparagraph (3)(a)(i), violence against a person includes an act constituting an offence of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, robbery or assault, or an equivalent offence.

(5) Despite subparagraph (3)(a)(i) and subsection (4), a person's conviction for an offence of common assault, or an equivalent offence, is taken not to be a conviction for a designated offence unless the act constituting the offence for which the person was convicted:

(a) causes or substantially contributes to:

(i) bodily harm to another person; or

(ii) harm to another person's mental health (within the meaning of the Criminal Code);

whether temporary or permanent; or

(b) involves family violence (as defined by subsection 4AB(1) of the Family Law Act 1975) by the person in relation to another person.

Designated offences possessing a weapon

(6) For the purposes of subparagraph (3)(a)(iv), a weapon includes:

(a) a thing made or adapted for use for inflicting bodily injury; and

(b) a thing where the person who has the thing intends or threatens to use the thing, or intends that the thing be used, to inflict bodily injury.

Designated offences ancillary offences

(7) Despite subparagraphs (3)(a)(v) to (viii), a person's conviction for an offence covered by any of those subparagraphs because of the operation of subparagraph (3)(a)(i) (as affected by subsection (4)), in relation to the commission of an offence (the primary offence) by another person, is taken not to be a conviction for a designated offence if, were the other person to be convicted of the primary offence, that conviction would not be a conviction for a designated offence because of the operation of subsection (5).

5 After paragraph 501(6)(a)

Insert:

(aaa) the person has been convicted of a designated offence (see subsections (7AA) to (7AE)); or

6 After subsection 501(7)

Insert:

Designated offences general

(7AA) For the purposes of the character test, a designated offence is an offence against a law in force in Australia, or a foreign country, in relation to which the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) one or more of the physical elements of the offence involves:

(i) violence, or a threat of violence, against a person (see subsections (7AB) and (7AC)); or

(ii) non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, including (without limitation) sexual assault and the non-consensual commission of an act of indecency or sharing of an intimate image; or

(iii) breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person; or

(iv) using or possessing a weapon (as defined by subsection (7AD)); or

(v) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv); or

(vi) inducing the commission of an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv), whether through threats or promises or otherwise; or

(vii) being in any way (directly or indirectly) knowingly concerned in, or a party to, the commission of an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv); or

(viii) conspiring with others to commit an offence that is a designated offence because of any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv);

(b) for an offence against a law in force in Australia—the offence is punishable by:

(i) imprisonment for life; or

(ii) imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than 2 years; or

(iii) imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than 2 years;

(c) for an offence against a law in force in a foreign country—if it were assumed that the act or omission constituting the offence had taken place in the Australian Capital Territory:

(i) the act or omission would have constituted an offence (the Territory offence) against a law in force in that Territory; and

(ii) the Territory offence would have been punishable as mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i), (ii) or (iii).

Designated offences violence against a person

(7AB) For the purposes of subparagraph (7AA)(a)(i), violence against a person includes an act constituting an offence of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, robbery or assault, or an equivalent offence.

(7AC) Despite subparagraph (7AA)(a)(i) and subsection (7AB), a person's conviction for an offence of common assault, or an equivalent offence, is taken not to be a conviction for a designated offence unless the act constituting the offence for which the person was convicted:

(a) causes or substantially contributes to:

(i) bodily harm to another person; or

(ii) harm to another person's mental health (within the meaning of the Criminal Code);

whether temporary or permanent; or

(b) involves family violence (as defined by subsection 4AB(1) of the Family Law Act 1975) by the person in relation to another person.

Designated offences possessing a weapon

(7AD) For the purposes of subparagraph (7AA)(a)(iv), a weapon includes:

(a) a thing made or adapted for use for inflicting bodily injury; and

(b) a thing where the person who has the thing intends or threatens to use the thing, or intends that the thing be used, to inflict bodily injury.

Designated offences ancillary offences

(7AE) Despite subparagraphs (7AA)(a)(v) to (viii), a person's conviction for an offence covered by any of those subparagraphs because of the operation of subparagraph (7AA)(a)(i) (as affected by subsection (7AB)), in relation to the commission of an offence (the primary offence) by another person, is taken not to be a conviction for a designated offence if, were the other person to be convicted of the primary offence, that conviction would not be a conviction for a designated offence because of the operation of subsection (7AC).

7 Application of amendments

(1) Paragraph 5C(1)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, as in force on and after the commencement of this item, applies for the purposes of subsection 336E(2) of that Act in relation to a disclosure of identifying information that is made on or after that commencement.

(2) Paragraph 501(6)(aaa) of the Migration Act 1958, as in force on and after the commencement of this item, applies to:

(a) a decision to grant or refuse to grant a visa, if:

(i) the application for the visa was made before that commencement and had not been finally determined as at that commencement; or

(ii) the application for the visa is made on or after that commencement; and

(b) a decision made on or after that commencement to cancel a visa.

(3) The provisions of the Migration Act 1958 mentioned in subitems (1) and (2) apply as mentioned in those subitems in relation to a person whether the person committed or was convicted of the relevant designated offence before, on or after the commencement of this item.

The opposition today have moved an amendment that was not a priority for them when they were in government. They only had nearly 10 years to do so! If it were a priority for the coalition, now the opposition, they would have passed it when they actually had the power to do so, in any one of the nearly 10 years that they were in office. In fact, after the then government finally got around to introducing amendments of this kind, they had four years and three immigration ministers to progress them. They sent the bill that this amendment now comes from to three Senate inquiries. So the now opposition had ample opportunity to do this at any point while they were in government, but they chose not to do so and not to make it a priority. Now, all of a sudden, they've decided it is a priority.

The Australian community has a reasonable expectation that noncitizens who seek to enter or remain in Australia are of good character and are law-abiding. That is a reasonable expectation from the Australian community. Similarly, Australians expect that any noncitizens who are not of good character will be refused a visa or have any visa they hold cancelled. That is a logical conclusion that Australians would make. This bill does not change the framework within which the character test operates. It allows for the continued effective administration of the powers in the Migration Act by ensuring that aggregate sentences are considered sentences, thereby restoring the ability to rely on substantial criminal record as an objective measure for the purpose of the character test.

This government is taking urgent common-sense action in response to a recent court decision in order to keep our community safe. We're not here to debate the broader character framework; we're here to clarify the powers in the Migration Act. For those reasons, we will be opposing the amendments and the opportunistic politics of those opposite.

N () (): I don't seek to extend this debate any more than is necessary, because I do understand the time sensitivity, and we want to ensure this bill passes. But I do have to correct the record in relation to the minister's claims that this wasn't a priority for the previous government and that we didn't pass it in our previous nine years in office. In fact, it was put to the parliament a number of times in the previous term: first, in September 2019; second, in October 2021; and, third, in February 2022.

The reason it was not successful in achieving passage in September 2019 or October 2021 was that the Labor Party and the Greens voted together to oppose the bills on those occasions. It wasn't until February 2022 that they finally decided to change their position and support it, and they voted for it in the House of Representatives. But, obviously, that was on the eve of the election, and there wasn't time for the Senate to consider and conclude this matter before the election. So, at the next available opportunity, being now, we are bringing this forward again because we have a longstanding commitment to this. It's one that we now share with the Labor Party, given their vote for this bill in the Senate and the opportunity they'll have in the House of Representatives in February. I encourage them to consider supporting it.

I want to ask the government a question on this. In regard to the amendment put up by Senator Paterson, it states, in amending item 4:

(c) for an offence against a law in force in a foreign country—if it were assumed that the act or omission constituting the offence had taken place in the Australian Capital Territory:

This begs the question. You have all the people in detention centres in Nauru who want to come to Australia, and they haven't been allowed to because they haven't passed the character test. We know that a lot of these people have destroyed their identification, and we don't know who they are. Therefore, with these people—and some have actually got through the system to actually be given citizenship—where do you stand then if you can't find out the particulars of who they really are? Have they committed an offence in a foreign country, and, therefore, will the government uphold the fact that they should not be allowed to get citizenship?

I want to know how the government intends to deal with this, of people you cannot really identify. Now the Greens are pushing Labor to allow these people from Nauru to come to Australia—and give them residency—but you can't satisfy the Australian people of their character. And, if any criminal offences have been committed in their own country, how is the government going to address this?

Senator Hanson, the issues that you've raised aren't relevant to this legislation. I would be happy to arrange for information that'll answer your questions to be provided to you by the minister's office. But, because those issues aren't relevant to this legislation, I don't have the briefing material to address them.

There are a couple of points I would make in response to your points. I think at one point you said that people who are currently on Nauru have been granted citizenship. To my knowledge, that hasn't occurred with any of those people—that they've been granted Australian citizenship. As for the claim that our government is in league with the Greens to bring these people to Australia, in actual fact we have significantly reduced the number of people on Nauru—which I think is a good thing, because they have been there a very, very long time—but the way that has largely been done has been through resettlement in other countries, rather than in Australia. They were just a couple of factual issues that I wanted to correct, and, as I said, I'm happy to arrange for information to be provided to you to address the questions that you were asking.

In your bill you're suggesting that people who've had a 12-month sentence by the courts are not of good enough character to become Australian citizens or permanent residents. Is that correct?

This is quite a simple bill that's very focused on one issue in particular, and that is that there was a court decision handed down just before Christmas which effectively overturned what had been understood to be the law in Australia on one point related to the power of the minister of the day to cancel the visa of someone who had failed the character test because they had a substantial criminal record. What the Australian law had always been understood to be—and, being the representing minister, I'm giving you the best information as I understand it, and someone will tell me if I get this wrong—was that, if someone had been convicted of a number of offences and had an overall sentence or an aggregate sentence of more than 12 months, they could have their visa cancelled. The decision that the court handed down just before Christmas basically said that the person had to have a conviction for one offence that led to a sentence of more than 12 months for that offence, and then they can have their visa cancelled. But, for instance, if someone were convicted of two different offences that had a combined sentence of more than 12 months, they couldn't have their visa cancelled. That was different from what the Australian law had always been understood to be, whether it be a coalition government or a Labor government, so what we're seeking to do through this bill is to clarify that point so that, if there's a particular person who has been convicted of a number of offences where the total sentences are more than 12 months, they could have their visa cancelled. That's what this bill is about. It is not about granting someone citizenship. It's actually about giving ministers power to, effectively, deport people rather than keep them in the country.

I'm glad you explained that to me. On that basis, I think it's a good move by the government to combine the sentences together, because they are re-offenders. I've also been told that, if the court system know that that person could be deported because of a jail term of 12 months or more, they give a lenient sentence of 11 months so they can't be deported by the minister. That is what I have personally been told, so, if this bill does what you've just said, which is that combined sentences added together are going to give the minister the ability to look at deporting these re-offenders from Australia, it will be a good thing for the Australian people.

Minister, if you're able, could you inform the Senate how many people were re-issued with visas post the Pearson decision and whether the minister has, in fact, already cancelled a number of those visas using powers under 501(3)(b) of the Migration Act? If so, how many people have had re-issued visas cancelled and therefore been redetained and retraumatized by the government?

I may have to take on notice the exact numbers that you are seeking, but I do know that the minister has cancelled some visas of people since the decision in Pearson effectively resulted in them having a visa re-issued. That's obviously not exactly what happened, but that's the practical effect. But, again, to your claims which I know you keep making—that this government is traumatising people—can we keep this in perspective? We're only talking here about people who have been convicted of some of the most serious offences under Australian criminal law: sexual assault, kidnapping, serious assaults. As I said earlier, I'm surprised that the Greens think that there's something wrong with a minister from any government deciding that those are not appropriate people to stay in Australia. I'm surprised that the Greens think that Australians support the idea that people who come to our country and commit serious sexual assaults, kidnap people or commit serious assaults should remain in our country. But that seems to be the Greens position. I reject this accusation that we are traumatising people, that we're the big bad government picking on poor, defenceless people. These are people who have been convicted of extremely serious offences, and I don't think they should stay in our country. We're not talking about minor offences. We're not talking about shoplifting. We're not talking about traffic offences. We're talking about people who have committed serious sexual assaults or kidnapped people, have been convicted of it and in some cases have been sentenced for very long periods which, owing to peculiarities of the law were aggregate sentences. I don't make any apology for those people losing the right to stay in Australia.

Firstly, I urge senators and anyone who might be listening to this broadcast that Senator Watt is an unreliable witness in terms of the Greens position on matters. He can make all the allegations that he likes about what we're saying, and he can draw all the long bows that he likes, but if Senator Watt were a witness in a case that I was legal counsel for, I'd be applying to have him declared as a hostile witness. I urge people that if they really want to know what the Greens think, I'm happy for them to take my words, as a member of the Greens, and not Senator Watt's.

Order! Interjections, under standing order 197, are disorderly. Senator McKim, you are welcome to defend the Greens position, but personal reflections are out of order.

Thank you for your wise ruling. My first request is to ask Minister Watt if he's able to take the questions I asked on notice. He has responded to some of them at a general level, and accepted the general proposition that I made, which is that the minister has use existing powers under the Migration Act to cancel visas that were reissued post the Pearson case and therefore put people back into detention. If the minister could commit to providing the numbers that I asked for in my original question on notice, I'd appreciate that.

The second point is that if the courts agreed about the seriousness of these offences then the people would have been sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment and the minister would have had the right to cancel their visas under existing powers. I genuinely don't think that Minister Watt's argument stacks up in any way.

Thirdly, I make the point that about 100 people who were released post the Pearson case—that is, they had visas reissued to them—and who are now liable, should this bill pass, to be re-detained include refugees and stateless people. Senator Watt wants to say that the Greens arguments around human rights that I made in my second reading speech are spurious. They are not spurious arguments.

I'm not going to be hectored by Senator Hanson, who has no idea what she's talking about on this issue and is yet again demonstrating how she wants to punch down on migrants in this country, which she has built a career by doing. I'm not going to be hectored on this by a racist senator like Senator Hanson.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKim, that was a personal reflection which was uncalled for. You will withdraw that remark about Senator Hanson.

I withdraw. The point I'm making is that the people who were released post the Pearson decision and are liable to be re-detained include refugees and stateless people. Many of these people have been in indefinite immigration detention for long periods—many years, in some cases. They are often people with severe trauma backgrounds who are extremely vulnerable. The minister has just admitted that the immigration minister has already cancelled a number of visas that were revived by the Pearson decision, under section 501(3)(b). The process to target the so-called worst offenders is already underway using existing powers of the Migration Act. There is no need for this bill.

I want to raise a couple of specific circumstances of people that are going to be impacted by this bill. I'm not going to talk about people's names or, in any way, identify them. There is one person—a refugee—who has trauma induced psychosis and has been described as one of the most mentally ill people his social workers have ever engaged with. That person should be treated for health conditions, not placed punitively into immigration detention. They're a refugee. They can't go back to their home country, because they have a genuine well-founded fear of persecution. They've been found to be a refugee.

Another case is a refugee who's currently working full time. He was released over Christmas. He's finally reconnected with his daughter and is now going to face being retraumatised and re-detained. Another case is a young refugee whose sentence was reduced to 10 months on appeal. He never should have been caught by the mandatory cancellation provisions, in the Migration Act, in the first place. He finally returned to his mother, over Christmas, and now faces being ripped apart from his mother and sent to an immigration detention facility on the other side of the country—because of this bill.

Seriously, there is no need for this legislation. It's going to rip families apart. It's going to retraumatise incredibly vulnerable people. Yet Senator Watt wants to get up and crack into the Greens on the basis of some spurious longbow argument that he's making. I'd urge Senator Watt to have a bit of a look in the mirror here at what the government is doing and the way the government is destroying lives in this country. As I said in my second reading contribution to this bill, this could have been stumped up by Mr Morrison or Mr Dutton—just like the instrument to designate Nauru as an offshore detention country that Senator Watt had to limply defend yesterday.

This is the same 'rubbish in a different bin' stuff that we're getting from this government. Sadly, in politics in this country, when the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics change sides in this chamber, it seems that the more things change the more they stay the same.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister?

I don't actually think there was a question in there, so there's probably nothing for me to answer. I had already taken on notice the earlier points. I note that with the example Senator McKim just gave—and I can only assume that the facts he laid out of that individual are correct—he omitted to mention whatever offence it was that that person had been convicted of. It must have been a very serious offence, that led to very high aggregate sentences, for that person to be captured by that legislation—if, indeed, that person is captured by this legislation.

The court in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs said, 'Aggregate sentences are often made up of a series of minor offending.' We've had this New Zealand problem, haven't we? We've known this for a while, and it is really putting a strain on our relationship. So I just want to say this.

I think criminals deserve to be locked up. There's no doubt about that. I think everyone's clear on that, where we stand. But if you have someone who came to this country as a kid and has lived in this country for 30 years and learnt how to be a criminal here, isn't that our personal responsibility—and more so for our New Zealand counterparts? This has been going on. And it has not been fixed. How is it fair to deport these people to New Zealand, for example, when they've been here since they were so young? Where's our responsibility in that? These are our Anzacs. We have to be very diplomatic when it comes to New Zealand.

Thanks, Senator Lambie. You'd be aware that our government has indicated an intention to change the way migration decisions are made in relation to people who have come here from New Zealand. In fact, the minister has issued a direction—I think that is the terminology—to the effect that, if someone from New Zealand has been in Australia from a very young age, that is to be a primary factor taken into account in decisions about that person's visa.

How that would relate here is that, if this bill is passed, we would go back to the situation in which Australian law has always been understood to be, which is that there would be mandatory cancellation of a person's visa if they were convicted of serious offences that led to long aggregate sentences. But, even if that mandatory—that is, not the decision of the minister—cancellation occurred, the individual concerned would have the power to seek a revocation of that decision. So, effectively, they could appeal that decision to the minister. At that point, if we're talking about a New Zealander or someone originally from New Zealand, the minister would have to give primary consideration to the fact that that individual had lived in Australia for a very long time.

So the person's visa would have mandatory cancellation, but, in the example of the New Zealander who has lived here since they were two or something like that, the minister would have to give consideration to the length of time they've lived in Australia in deciding whether to back off that mandatory cancellation. But the presumption is mandatory cancellation because, again, we are talking about people who have been convicted of very serious offences.

I just have one question of clarification for the minister. One of the cases I gave in my last contribution was of a young refugee who arrived in Australia as a child at the age of 10. He was convicted and sentenced, but his sentence was reduced to 10 months on appeal. My understanding is that he was caught by the mandatory cancellation provisions in the Migration Act but that he had a visa reissued based on the Pearson decision and was released into the community.

The issue is—and I ask you to confirm this, Minister—that, firstly, the mandatory cancellation process under the act actually doesn't wait for appeals. In this case it kicked in straight away and didn't wait for appeals. This person had their sentence reduced to less than 12 months and was released post the Pearson decision. Would a person like that be caught by the provisions in this act? Would the provisions of this act allow for the minister to cancel the visa of a person who was caught by the mandatory cancellation provisions but had their sentence reduced to 10 months on appeal?

This is an observation, not a question: regarding the 10 months, I make the point that Senator Watt is talking about really serious offences, but the people who are caught here are people whom the courts have sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment.

Senator McKim, obviously I am not familiar with the particular circumstances of that case. What we're talking about here is aggregate sentences that are of more than 12 months. My understanding, on the advice I've just been given—and I'm happy to come back to you after further examination if this isn't correct—is that if, on appeal, that sentence were to fall below that 12-month mark then that would not be enough to trigger mandatory cancellation. So the sentence on appeal would be taken into account. That's the advice I've been given. If that is not correct, I'll come back to you.

This bill is retrospective; correct? Is it retrospective and how long does that go back? Sorry, I missed that bit. This may capture the people that were released as a result of the Pearson decision but also a bunch of others. Do you have numbers on how many additional people will be captured by the proposed changes? What are the exact crimes that these individuals committed? How long has each of these people lived in Australia? How did they arrive here? At what age did they arrive here? Do you have much of that information on you now, Minister, or do you have a brief? Can you give me around about without—

Thank you for your questions. We will go to the minister and then, if you need to ask some follow-up questions, we will go back to you.

I don't have all of that information here, Senator Lambie, but what I do know is that the legislation is retrospective in the sense that it seeks to apply mandatory cancellation to people who had already had their visas cancelled under mandatory cancellation but this Pearson court decision basically said that their visas were no longer cancelled. So they are a group of people who, because they committed serious offences and had an aggregate sentence of more than 12 months, had mandatory cancellation of their visas. But for a relatively small group of people who had had their visas mandatorily cancelled because they had aggregate sentences of more than 12 months the court decision said, 'That's not allowed,' and therefore their visas have effectively been reissued. They are allowed to stay. They were people who were convicted of serious offences and had mandatory cancellation of their visas. The court said, 'Actually the way the law works is that those people shouldn't have had mandatory cancellation of their visas,' and therefore they got their visas back. What we are trying to do with this legislation is, if you like, step back in time and clarify that, in fact, for this group of people who had aggregate sentences of more than 12 months it was right that they had mandatory cancellation of their visas. That is, as I say, what's always been understood to be the case and the law. It was just that this court decision found something different.

In terms of the types of offences we are talking about you may have heard me say it's not minor offences; it's serious offences. When you think about it, we are talking about offences that lead to sentences of more than 12 months. It is just that in some cases there might have been a six-month conviction for one offence and a 10-year sentence for another offence and, because that's an aggregate sentence of more than 12 months, that wasn't enough for the court. So we are talking about sexual assault, kidnapping and serious assaults. As I say, it's not shoplifting or traffic offences. It's some of the most serious offences you can imagine.

Can I just go over this. So what you are doing is trying to clear up the muddy waters in this so it is very, very clear; is that correct? I know that, in your dissenting report on the inquiry into the previous government's Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021, your side was saying that:

The Minister for Home Affairs already has extremely broad powers to act in this way—

that is, to cancel visas—

Section 501 of the Migration Act allows, and in some cases requires, the minister to cancel or refuse a visa …

So this is to clear this up so you are in sync with the court? Is that correct? Am I saying that correctly?

Yes, it is to clear this up. I probably wouldn't say that it's to be in sync with the court; I would actually probably say it's to disagree with the court. What the court found was that the Australian law was different to what governments of both persuasions have always thought was the law, and so what we're trying to do with this change is make really clear in the law what was always thought to be the law but the court thought differently. Does that make sense? That probably makes it even more confusing!

The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1807 be agreed to.

Pursuant to order, I now call on senators' statements.

It is so good to be back here in the Senate in 2023, after what was an absolutely massive 2022. In May last year the Albanese Labor government was elected on a positive platform to build a better, fairer country. Since our election we've been working tirelessly to deliver on this agenda.

We've introduced measures like cheaper medicines for millions of Australians. In fact, for the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS the co-payment for general scripts has fallen, making a significant difference for families who rely on this. We've introduced legislation to support 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave into the National Employment Standards, meaning no-one needs to choose between a day's pay, their livelihood, getting help and getting out of a dangerous situation. And we've introduced the legislation underpinning the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will restore integrity to our federal parliament.

We advocated for the biggest increase to the minimum wage in years, which saw a 5.2 per cent wage increase for some of Australia's lowest-paid workers, a wage increase that was long and well overdue. We've gotten on with the job of fixing the crisis within our aged-care system so that our oldest Australians can live in comfort and dignity. We saw that crisis worsen and worsen over the past nine years of the previous government. We are funding 180,000 fee-free TAFE places to help fill the skill shortages in our economy. These places will come online over the course of 2023, with applications already open.

As well, in 2022 we took important action on climate change to help preserve our nation and the wealth of future generations, legislating for a 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. This was something we know our community, environmental groups and business had been calling on for years, essential to providing certainty to guiding investment and to making a difference on the threat of climate change.

And in 2022 we made commitments that I am personally deeply proud of—our investment of $284 million in First Nations health infrastructure across Australia, including $13.35 million to rebuild Yadu Health in Ceduna and $8.9 million to build a primary healthcare clinic for the Murrurundi Aboriginal health service in Murray Bridge.

We took to the election in 2022 an ambitious agenda, one driven by the deeply held Labor ambition to build a better and fairer country. I am proud of the work we have done in 2022, but more importantly I am focused on the work that remains ahead in what is set to be another huge year because in 2023 we are expanding paid parental leave. From 1 July this year Australians will have access to an expanded scheme, expanding it to a full six months available to parents welcoming a new baby into their family by 2026. This will be the biggest increase to paid parental leave since its inception under the last Labor government and will help parents, mums and dads, spend more time with their children in those critical early months where we know those connections formed are so important to a child's development and wellbeing. We don't want any Australian parent having to choose to not spend those first few months forging those bonds and those connections with their child because they can't afford to take leave.

From 1 July we will see Australian families and their kids be able to access more affordable early learning. We know what a difference this will make. Access to quality early learning is vital for the development of children. It shapes and impacts their outcomes in life. Providing children with an environment to engage in play based learning, to help build those critical brain connections that will set them up for a lifetime of learning is vital work, and it's work that our parliament is helping to advance and contribute to.

We'll further build on it with the work of the Early Years Strategy, which will be developed this year as well. In the first five years of life we can make our biggest impact on the outcomes of children, on the outcomes of family, on our future productivity, on our wellbeing and prosperity as a nation. Our Early Years Strategy will help improve government service delivery and help set up our youngest Australians for a successful and prosperous future. I'm very much looking forward to all of the South Australians who I know share my passion for early learning and development being consulted on these strategies so that we can develop something that will be truly impactful.

Of course, in 2023, as we look ahead, Australians will also have the opportunity to vote for constitutional recognition of our First Nations Australians and a voice to parliament. This is about recognising First Nations Australians in our Constitution. It is about consulting them on the issues that matter to them, on the decisions government takes which will impact them. The Uluru Statement was a generous and gracious offer from First Nations Australians towards a more reconciled future, and in 2023 it will be significant. We will have our opportunity to respond to that call with the same generosity and graciousness. I have been absolutely heartened already this year by the number of South Australians who reached out over the summer to tell me that they will be supporting the 'yes' campaign. They are keen to get out there and get involved. I will be supporting it too and look forward to the outcome of this referendum and being able to walk together towards a more reconciled and united future. The voice is not a radical proposition; it is a simple one and it is a kind one. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is supporting it.

We know that 2023 will also bring particular challenges. We know cost-of-living pressures are already biting hard, and they are front of mind for many, many South Australians. Our government is committed to working with South Australians to ease this pain, including through making the cost of medicine cheaper, making child care cheaper and doing what we can to promote wage growth. But of course there will be more work to do in 2023.

In my state, especially, there will be particular challenges confronting our community. The impact of the summer floods, which inundated towns along the River Murray, has been significant. The state government anticipates these floods will be among the worst that South Australia has experienced in decades, and the impact on homes and businesses has been confronting. We know that flows into the River Murray reached a peak of 185.9 gigalitres per day on 22 December and remained elevated, well above normal levels. Right now, across South Australia, families and communities are taking stock of the damage to their homes and businesses, with the SES estimating that over 3,000 properties were impacted by the flooding along the River Murray and with more than 1,000 kilometres of roads flooded in weeks.

Of course it's deeply upsetting too that there are an estimated 750 First Nations heritage sites which may have been inundated and damaged during the flooding. While the total financial impact of it will take time to calculate, it is expected to be amongst the worst natural disasters, in terms of the economic impact, in our history, and the state government has already announced significant packages for rebuilding local infrastructure.

I want to take this opportunity before the Senate to express my heartfelt condolences to all South Australians and to all the volunteers and staff of our emergency services, who have been working tirelessly over the summer to protect lives, to protect property and to assist their fellow South Australians to deal with these floods and the catastrophic impact of them on their communities. We know that without the committed and strong networks of volunteers across our regional communities the impact of these floods would have been much more significant. So I do express my heartfelt thanks, and I want to encourage any South Australians impacted by the flooding to explore their eligibility for the disaster recovery allowance, which they can do at disasterassist.gov.au. I thank Minister Watt as well for the work he has done on behalf of the federal government in supporting these communities.

It is the privilege of my life to represent the great state of South Australia in this place, and in 2023, as we look to the year ahead, I will be working tirelessly as a member of the Albanese Labor government to continue our work and our fight to build a better, fairer future for South Australian families. I have always said as a South Australian senator that I believe our best days as a state are ahead of us. They are ahead of us, and they will be ahead of us if we all work tirelessly in this parliament and in our state to be proactive about seizing and fostering the opportunities which come before us. Together we can build a state with the brightest future of our nation, and I'm dedicated to being part of that work in the Senate. I will be doing that as part of an Albanese Labor government building a better and fairer future. I look forward to, and am very energised by, the work that will be ahead in 2023.

I rise to pay tribute to two late stalwarts of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Fran Weller and Michelle Bower, whose contributions and very special personal qualities will long be remembered.

Fran Weller's life touched a great many people, not least of all me. Often, Fran's friendship or associations touched several generations within families. Fran's remarkable life and her many interests were such that very few of us would know until her death the full extent of her work and dedication to others. There was her teaching family—Fran having taught in Jerramungup, Harvey and New Norcia; at John Willcock College, in Geraldton; and in Clarkson, in Perth's northern suburbs. Among her pupils were future politicians and future football stars, and her long teaching career was such that, to the surprise of some, Fran more than once found herself teaching the children of her former students.

There are some wonderful tributes from her teaching colleagues, and I'll share some lines from letters to Fran from the John Willcock College principal, Julie Campbell. Julie Campbell said of Fran:

The program that you work with provides many of our students at risk the opportunity of experiencing success in a small group situation. That they feel comfortable in your groups speaks for the fact that you always strive to provide a warm and inclusive environment for your students.

I know that the staff who have worked closely with you have very much appreciated your willingness to share your experience and knowledge and many of them have often felt that they can bring to you their personal problems as well. That is not on any job description you will read.

That summarises Fran perfectly—always going beyond in whatever she did.

Others knew Fran from her commitment to farming and the farming communities in which she lived. All students, fellow teachers and community members valued Fran's warmth and generosity and her clear views on matters. For me personally, Fran Weller was a steady and wise counsellor. I met Fran decades ago. As a young man—a young Liberal—in a hurry, Fran was an encouraging and always reassuring presence. It was a generosity and warmth that blended her country style with the general support and reassurance a teacher brings. I liked Fran greatly. For me, I was never left unsure about when I was on the right track or, equally, when in Fran's view I may have found myself in a political cul-de-sac. Every word from Fran was from her heart; every word from Fran was one you could trust.

The WA Liberals, at least from the outside, can sometimes look like a strange and unwelcoming bunch of people. On the inside, though, it's best understood as a family. With the passage of time, and on occasions such as Fran's passing, we are reminded of the virtues of being in a family like the WA Liberal Party. Fran was an emblem of all that is good and noble about the WA Liberals. Fran's presence and participation enriched the Liberal family.

People like Fran are a rare but greatly cherished type of person. She was someone whose sleeves were always rolled up. No was task too great, no task was too small. Fran was as comfortable organising the local branch of the division as she was stewarding the party as a state vice-president, as the chair of a committee or as a state councillor. After decades of selfless service, Fran and her husband, Greg, were properly recognised with a Meritorious Service Award presented to them by the then prime minister, Mr Tony Abbott.

Above all else, Fran was a wife, a mother and a grandmother. Some of us knew Fran as 'Greg and Fran', a term of endearment that painted a picture of teamwork in the couple, who first met in Waroona in the 1960s. In Greg's own words to me before the funeral, he said, 'It was a marriage made in heaven.' I was honoured to join Greg and his family at Fran's funeral recently in Waroona. I was particularly privileged and honoured to be asked to give the eulogy, which has shaped this contribution in the Senate today. Although tremendously saddened which Fran's loss, we are so grateful to have in our own unique and very special way our lives touched and shaped by such a wonderful lady. We are reassured that she is now at peace—no doubt with a few views of her own—with our Maker.

Another member of the WA Liberal Party to sadly leave us has been Michelle Bower, heavily involved in the Fremantle and later Nedlands branches from 2013. Here I'd like to share with the Senate the words of my friend and fellow Liberal Michelle Boylan, who made a heartfelt and touching contribution at Michelle Bower's funeral:

Michelle was a beautiful woman … incredibly caring and thoughtful. While small in stature, Michelle was strong in character, not afraid of hard conversations or letting you know when she did not approve of a party matter or policy. Her discernment was an incredible character trait.

Michelle had a strong and dedicated work ethic and was always supportive. Often, turning up out of the blue with a smile, treat, hug or a word of encouragement, and her timing was always perfect.

Michelle was a great champion for the women in the Party both as an active supporter and contributor to the Liberal Women's Council. Michelle served the Party right to the end, phone canvassing for Celia (Hammond) in the most recent Federal election while terminally ill, which speaks to her character, one of kindness, integrity, strength, and her beautiful ability to put others first.

I echo the sentiments that it was a genuine honour to know Michelle Bower—who served us so well, even when facing her own adversity—and to enjoy her friendship and her support. There's no doubt she will be greatly missed. Again, I send my condolences to Michelle's husband, family, and friends.

To these very special Liberal ladies, I end by simply saying: thank you.

As I have said time and time again in this place, poverty is a political choice. There are around five million people who receive some form of income support payment. How can recipients not be struggling on $48 a day on JobSeeker? We know that a third of Australian households are struggling just to put food on the table. All costs are rising except for the rate of income support payments. Everyday Australians are tired. They shouldn't need to rely upon the goodwill of their friends, families and charities just to get by.

This is all part of the neoliberal nonsense that will see more people worse off while corporate profits absolutely soar. The Labor government has ignored these calls and, in doing so, has left millions of people having to choose between paying the rent, essential medicines or eating three meals a day. There is nothing secure about our social security system. I hear that every day, as do my colleagues, from the constituents who are contacting us. I'd like to share an account from James, who contacted my office to share his experience in receiving the JobSeeker payment. James shared with us that for the last several years he has felt like he is barely existing: 'Most fortnights I starve for four days unless my family takes pity on me and gifts me some food. This is embarrassing, and my family struggles as well. It also creates tension and anxiety between us so I try to go without, but I need to keep up meals because of diabetes.'

James is not alone. My office receives daily emails from people on income support, people who simply do not know where their next meal is going come from or how they will pay for essential medications. Or they fear eviction due to skyrocketing rental costs. I'd like to share some evidence from an anonymous witness who spoke to a hearing of our Senate poverty inquiry last week. Every policymaker, every senator in this place, needs to hear this witness's story. Seven years ago, witness A unexpectedly became homeless as a result of domestic violence. Her life was threatened and so were her children's. When she went to a refuge with her children, her husband withdrew all the money from their joint bank account and started court proceedings against her. She has had to rely on church pantries for food. A lot of the church food banks asked intrusive questions and tried to sign up her children for evangelistic programs. When she said no to this the church refused to give her the food box she was there to collect.

Witness A shared that she had spent seven years of 'pretending to my kids that I'm not hungry, or that I've already eaten'. Her kids wear donated uniforms and the teachers get them in trouble for not wearing the right shoes. They pretend to her that they're doing okay. She has never paid less than 80 per cent of her income on housing, sometimes over 100 per cent. She's had to beg church authorities for emergency rental assistance. She's tried twice to go back to education, but had to leave both times because the income support she received wasn't enough. After her most recent experience with JobSeeker, she decided never to apply again. The interactions with Centrelink—verbal abuse, gaslighting and coercive control—reminded her of the abusive husband she had escaped from.

These people in our community have been punished by 10 years of a callous coalition government, and they were hoping that they would get more from a change of government. As we saw in Labor's first budget last year, however, these people continue to be chastised by a Labor government which professes to speak for the people but is taking no real action to help them. Minister Rishworth has stated that social services are central to the Albanese Labor government's vision to create a better future for all Australians and to leave no-one behind; however, Treasurer Chalmers continues to assure us that there is no room in the budget to raise JobSeeker. Yet Labor found plenty of room in the budget to give another $9,000 a year per person in tax cuts to billionaires, to the ultrawealthy and to everybody earning over $200,000 a year—who absolutely do not need that tax cut! Every single one of us in this place will receive a $9,000 a year tax cut. I don't need this tax cut and I don't think any of you do either.

In the same breath, Labor scoffs at the idea of raising JobSeeker above the poverty line. There's nothing laughable about this. The most vulnerable people in our community need financial support. You cannot claim to tackle the spiralling cost of living by abandoning those who need support while lining the pockets of those who earn over $200,000 a year.

To the people of Australia, like James, like Witness A, all those who are on income support and are struggling to pay for rent, food, fuel, education, child care and bills in this cost-of-living crisis, please know, it is not your fault. You deserve so much better than what you are receiving from the government. The Greens will continue to fight for you, inside and outside of the parliament, until we no longer need to raise this in the parliament. The Greens believe that the foundation of a socially just society requires the provision of a guaranteed liveable income so that everyone has enough to meet their needs—not just those who won in the lottery of life.

I'm calling on Minister Rishworth and Treasurer Chalmers to listen to real stories, from people like James and Witness A, and to genuinely hear what they are saying. People who share their stories have devoted their valuable time and energy. Don't let it be in vain. No-one should have to skip meals just to get by, not in one of the wealthiest countries in the world like Australia. It's clear that our social safety net is broken. Poverty is a political choice being made by both major parties. Now, more than ever, we need to raise the rate of income support to at least $88 a day, abolish punitive mutual obligations and provide earlier access to the pension at age 65. This is the only way that we can tackle the cost-of-living crisis and support those most impacted.

I also want to take the opportunity today to, particularly, mention an important issue that's been raised with me by a number of constituents and the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children: the problem with our child support system. In 2019, the Swinburne University of Technology and the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children released a report entitled Debts and disappointment: mothers' experiences of the child support system. That report notes that the Australian child support system transfers money to approximately 1.2 million children, and, importantly, the report builds on the survey of hundreds of respondents. The survey and the results summarised in the report show that there are clear problems that need urgent action.

The report found that the national child support debt severely harms families. These hardships were often exacerbated by the Centrelink benefits system, particularly through the interactions of the family tax benefit. There are devastating impacts on families, particularly single mothers, when the child support payment is unpaid, late, sporadic and/or partial. Children miss out on social and educational experiences. There are also health impacts, as kids may miss out on medical appointments, particularly specialist appointments, if their parents—usually their mothers—are struggling to cover costs. There are impacts on the parents as well. As the report notes, recurring findings pointed to concerning health, emotional and wellbeing impacts that went beyond economic insecurity, manifesting in anxiety and a sense of being continuously let down by the system that was instituted to support them and their families.

I want to thank the advocates who have raised this important issue, and the constituents who've been raising it with me and other members of parliament directly. We hear you. Your voices are important and you deserve better—with a system that was left to grind to a halt after a decade of Liberal neglect. We need to see urgent action from the government. I know this is something that advocates and constituents have been raising directly with government. We will continue to raise it as well and to urge the government to act. The system cannot continue in crisis. It is just too important for that.

This year, the Australian people will go to a referendum on enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution. The Constitution holds part of the story of Australia, and it's time that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are included in that story—better yet, that they be given a voice in the Constitution to tell their own Australian story.

The Voice is an extraordinary opportunity, a genuine path towards improving the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It's a proposal that has been put to us, the Australian people, and to this parliament by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and leaders themselves. It emerged from a series of regional constitutional conventions held across the country and one of the most extensive dialogues on our constitution since Federation. It culminated in a national convention at Uluru in May 2017.

Since that day, the Uluru statement has travelled the length and breadth of this country. Many hundreds of people from all walks of life have signed their names to the statement. Despite the claim of some within this chamber, the voice continues to receive over 80 per cent support amongst Indigenous communities. This support is shared amongst the broader Australian people. The statement of intent signed by our state and territory first ministers is just the most recent indication of the broad consensus that is building across the country in support of the voice. Essential polling has revealed that over 65 per cent of Australians continue to support the voice. This support has remained steady over recent years. This is because the communities we represent are ready for change.

I have a great amount of faith in the Australian people and in their generosity and goodwill. This is a great country, but we can make it better with a successful referendum. We all want to find peace, honesty and justice in our history. We all want to prosper in a more united nation, a nation in which all Australians can see themselves reflected, a nation where all are respected from the uniqueness of the contributions they have made to this country from their own social and cultural frameworks. Australians know that, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the laws and policies that affect them, when people on the ground are listened to and engaged, better laws, policies and strategies are made.

The voice is about making our work here in the chamber more responsive, accurate, informed and, hopefully, more collegiate in the future. The voice will improve the work of parliament and its integrity. I must say with confidence that many senators in this chamber have at one time or another benefited immensely from the advice and wisdom of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. This is what the voice is about—genuine exchange, the sharing of knowledge and wisdom, and mutual respect. This provision, promoted by the Prime Minister at Garma last year, will give recognition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and provide a guaranteed way for their voice to be heard in this place and the other place.

The voice will be chosen by First Nations peoples based on the wishes of their local communities. It will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender based, and it will include youth. Importantly, it will be accountable and transparent, and it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. These principles agreed by the working group have been out there in the public space for more than four months now, and the working group and the government may have more to say on the architecture of the voice before Australians vote later this year. Some of these matters are under consideration by the working group.

I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General for their attendance at the last working group meeting and Senator Bragg for his continued in-principle support for the voice. Many detailed matters can be worked out subsequent to a referendum. There will be and there has already been a significant amount of misinformation in the debate about the voice, and I ask that each of you embrace what is fact and reject what is fiction. This is our duty as senators and as elected representatives of the people of this country.

As a senator, I can say unequivocally that parliament will retain its supremacy and it will be unencumbered in its lawmaking functions. As an Aboriginal man and traditional owner, I can also say unequivocally that the voice will not cede sovereignty nor curtail future efforts towards agreement-making and truth-telling. Constitutional experts have consistently confirmed this, including the Group of Eight constitutional lawyers advising the working group. In advice published last week, all members of the expert groups agreed draft provisions would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body. In fact, the voice will strengthen and reinforce the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We must not lose sight of this as the first step in improving our relationship with the first peoples of this country. We are at the beginning of a new journey. This journey will make us face the consequences of colonisation and settlement, and its destination will be a more united and unified nation.

The upcoming referendum is an extraordinary moment for our country. Every vote will count. We must grasp this moment and take our nation forward. Many of those who have walked along this long road for reform and who signed their names to the Uluru Statement have already left us, and some far too early. I urge everyone to open their hearts, to imagine an Australia that supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a say over matters that affect them, and to have that voice enshrined in the constitution. In doing so, it will help us to be a prouder nation, and I hope to walk with you all later in this year as we go towards yes.

What the Australian people are witnessing right now is an unfolding catastrophe that threatens the livelihoods and economic viability of Australia. Unlike COVID-19, this economic catastrophe is completely man-made and a result of reckless policy and thoughtless planning from the government. The catastrophe I refer to is the artificial energy crisis of the government's own creation that will occur from their ill-conceived policies, such as the energy price cap that we saw come in through this chamber blindingly fast, without any chance for any of us to talk to it or debate it late last year. On top of that, their Rewiring the Nation plan will be a catastrophe. The government have made it extremely clear by now that they intent to forge on down this reckless path, and seem intent on choosing the most uneconomical and costly path to reduce emissions, with no consideration of the economic consequences that will unfold. We've heard from almost every sector of society about how dangerous this government's energy plans are and how little thought they have put into conducting an orderly transition to net zero.

When I attended COP27 in Egypt last year, one thing was abundantly clear: whether you like it or not, the transition to net zero is happening and going to happen. It's a coming tidal wave of enormous proportions, so everyone had better get on board. However, it's a real shame that COP was attended by so few of those opposite because if they were there, they would have heard for themselves from experts around the world that this transition will be long, it is going to be hard and it is going to be very expensive—but not as expensive as Labor are planning on making it. The aim of the transition to a renewable energy grid is not just about recklessly scattering solar panels and wind farms across the country and then paying billions of dollars to connect them to the grid, as the government intends to do through their Rewiring the Nation plan. This will leave us with an unstable grid that will result in soaring energy costs, blackouts and economic ruin. Yet, despite the Albanese government repeatedly blaming the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the coalition's energy policy, to explain Australia's steadily rising power bills, the impact of current and proposed policy is key to the uncertain future of domestic energy prices and investment.

The government's reasoning is that this energy crisis is due to the global impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. However, it is important to note that prior to the invasion the Brent oil price was at $80 per barrel and the ACCC reported that the net LNG price was at $41.24 per gigajoule. So, despite the events in Ukraine exacerbating the challenges in the LNG market, it's clear that this issue has been prevalent globally and in Australia for a decade or more due to a lack of investment in new supply, and states, such as my own home state of Victoria, can well be blamed for that. Despite having an abundant amount of natural gas, the Victorian Labor government is intent on prohibiting Australians from accessing it, thereby reducing supply and increasing the cost of gas for Victorian businesses.

The Labor government have essentially nationalised the gas market and put the expectation on private companies to continue to put their own capital at risk in the market to keep this essential industry and resource abundant, while simultaneously making the operating conditions unviable for anyone who's prepared to invest in it. This kind of ludicrous and irrational policymaking will only result in further reductions of supply and increase costs and instability.

The market has already responded to this. ExxonMobil and Woodside Energy, which jointly own some of the biggest sources of gas in the domestic market, reduced their forward investment commitment to a six-month time frame. These are projects that take years to develop. They are citing the government's 'reckless intervention in the gas market' for doing so.

The supply shortage of gas should not come as a surprise to anyone. No-one can claim that they didn't see it coming. AEMO, in their GSOO—Gas Statement of Opportunities—have been saying this for a long period. Just last year, when the ACCC released their gas report, they said:

… supply conditions in the east coast market are expected to deteriorate significantly in 2023, with a shortfall of 56 PJ now expected. This is equivalent to around 10% of domestic demand and is the largest projected supply shortfall we have forecast since the Inquiry commenced in 2017.

When Minister Bowen came out and tried to defend his absurd price cap in January, he cited Treasury figures from 21 December on the wholesale price of energy. He stated:

… figures released show that that intervention, while we still have some way to go, we still have more work to do, is having an impact.

However, this data was released before the price cap had even come into effect, which was on 23 December. The government know that their policies will result in increased costs. In fact, the Treasurer's last budget, in October, forecasted an additional 56 per cent jump in retail prices. Despite going to the polls at the last election promising to cut bills for households by $275, all the government can now promise is to make the cost of living harder than it has to be.

While the shift to low- or zero-emissions energy is unstoppable and accelerating, the transition to a 100 per cent renewable grid will require a role for gas and perhaps coal to supplement the renewable energy and provide firming capacity for the grid until zero-emissions technologies become more mature, as a solution to firming the grid when it's running on 100 per cent renewables. This was made clear in JP Morgan's 2022 Annual energy paper, which explicitly states:

If the energy transition is to succeed, we cannot disconnect the generation methods we have before we have a replacement for them.

It has become abundantly clear that this government has not even considered grid stability or supply security in their Rewiring the Nation plan. Just last week we heard on the ABC, from top energy expert Dylan McConnell, that Australia is adding renewable energy at less than half the pace required to replace retiring coal fired generation and meet its own 2030 climate targets. Of course, there is the obvious solution to firming the grid that will allow Australia to reach its emission reduction goals much, much sooner than 2050, and that is nuclear power. As a mature, ready-to-implement emissions-free technology, Australia is absolutely mad not pursue this.

The Treasurer's—I won't say the word 'crazy'—6,000-word essay on reimagining capitalism, redefining how we define a successful economy, says it all about this government. Not only do they know that their policies will make it more difficult for Australians, instead of actually trying to make things better; now they want to move the goalposts and give themselves a participation medal. Newsflash, guys: if the lights aren't on and Australians can't afford to live, that is not a successful economy. It's time the government got that through their head, before they attempt to nationalise the rest of Australia.

Let us not forget that sharp rises in energy prices have preceded several global recessions, with the most famous coming from the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s. Similarly, before the 2008-09 recession, there was a 150 per cent increase in oil prices. But somehow this government thinks that reducing supply and nationalising the energy market is a good idea and that it won't lead to energy price rises and a potential recession. I think we'll find out it will.

I rise to call out the thuggish wage suppression tactics being used by Woodside against their own employees. In June of last year—that's eight months ago—a majority of Woodside offshore gas workers voted that they wanted to negotiate together for a new agreement through their unions, the AWU and the MUA. In a civil workplace, where the employer respects their workers' basic human rights to join a union and negotiate together, that majority vote would be respected, and then they would get down to bargaining in good faith. That would be normal practice. Instead, what we've seen from one of the richest and most profitable companies in Australia is a disgraceful abuse of legal process.

In the last eight months, Woodside has lodged not one, not two, not three, but nine frivolous legal challenges against their workers' majority support petition. And all nine of Woodside's legal challenges have failed. After eight months and nine legal disputes, Woodside's workers thought they were finally going to get the chance to begin work on a new agreement—until late last night. Woodside announced it's filing a 10th legal appeal. This 10th appeal is on the grounds that Woodside thinks supervisors should not have the right to be included in the agreement, a right that they are requesting. That is despite the ruling by the Fair Work Commission as well last week, to quote directly from Deputy President Binet, that it 'is not uncommon for agreements and awards to cover frontline supervisors'. She said: 'The evidence supports the conclusion that there is nothing unfair in the supervisors being part of the employee group.' It sounds pretty clear to me. And what's pretty clear is that those supervisors voted to be part of an agreement.

The fact is that this latest appeal is as absurd and vexatious as the last nine failed applications. In one of those applications, Woodside claimed without any evidence that some of the signatures on the petition were fake. Then, in another application, Woodside demanded access to the unredacted signatures so that it could verify them against signatures in their own records, only to later admit that they had no such records. Woodside then argued that, because they had successfully dragged their workers through the courts for so long, the petition was now out of date. But, when the Australian Workers Union offered to pay for a new ballot, Woodside strongly opposed that too. The AWU national secretary, Dan Walton, summed this up by saying:

Thousands of sensible companies sit down to negotiate with workers and their representatives every year.

He said:

… a massive Australian company like Woodside should not be allowed to stack up meritless claims to put pressure on a union's resources with the sole intention of bullying its workforce.

Offshore Alliance coordinator Zach Duncalfe also was spot on in saying:

Unfortunately, companies with bottomless pockets like Woodside have the means to frustrate and delay what should be a simple proceeding before the commission.

If Woodside have a limitless sum of money set aside to waste their workers' time, to waste unions' time and to waste the precious time and resources of our legal system then perhaps they aren't paying enough tax.

Woodside have made a fortune in the last few years by jacking up gas prices paid by every single Australian household and business. Woodside have made a fortune by exploiting the tragic situation in Ukraine, and they have the gall to complain about price caps. They have the audacity to rob their workers of their legal right to join a union and bargain together. If this is how Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill runs the business, it would be very interesting to see her before a Senate inquiry explaining it. That's the way that we represent and engage with Australians wanting their democratic voice to be heard. If that's her policy then that's something that should be held to account by the Australian people. We need to demand a serious change of behaviour from big corporates like Woodside and companies like Qantas when it comes to their pattern of thuggish behaviour against their own workforces and hardworking Australians.

I rise to speak about the stain on our nation and our soul that is family violence. We promised before the election that we would make women's safety a national priority, and we have. Last year, one of the first pieces of legislation we introduced was on paid family and domestic violence leave. I'm proud to say that, as of 1 February, this leave is now available for millions of Australians to access. Make no mistake: this will save lives.

Australian workers—full time, part time and casual—will have access to 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave a year, no matter how many hours they work. The full 10 days will be available when it's needed rather than having to be accumulated over time like annual leave and sick leave. This will make a huge difference in the lives of many Australian workers who are affected by family violence. There are rules to keep information about whether an employee is taking domestic and family violence private rather than having to be included on a pay slip. Importantly, casual workers will be paid at the full-time rate for the hours they were rostered on to work.

So what can this leave be used for? It's to help all employees do whatever they need to to keep themselves and their families safe. This may include making arrangements for their safety or the safety of loved ones, attending court hearings, dealing with the police, attending counselling or meeting with medical, financial or legal professionals.

We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she attempts to leave an abusive relationship, which is why being able to access this leave is so crucial to women's safety. No-one should ever have to choose between their safety and their pay.

I want to acknowledge the work of activists over many years to make this a reality. This landmark legislation started with strong union women standing up and speaking out in their workplaces for safety and security. This is a change that was years in the making, and it is thanks to campaigning from survivors, frontline workers and the union movement.

Last year, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the pioneering ASU women in Geelong, who were the first to negotiate domestic violence leave in their agreements. Standing together, these women became the first in the country to have paid family and domestic violence leave. This win set off a national campaign which ran for over a decade, culminating in the change that we now see. I really hope that Kristy, Sharon, Harriet and Adele are just so proud of what they've achieved. I know I am so proud of them.

This is a landmark reform, and it's just one of the parts of the Albanese government's commitment to ending family violence. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own homes, around people that they love the most, and that's why we're delivering the new National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. We're funding hundreds of new frontline workers, including in rural, regional and remote areas. We're delivering 4,000 social housing dwellings for women and children escaping violence. We're funding consent and respectful relationships education to help stop violence before it starts. And we're implementing all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report, including a requirement for employers to actively prevent sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. All of this reform is not easy, but it's the right thing to do and it will save lives. We know that, regardless of your background, family violence can happen to anyone and it can happen anywhere in our country. Most importantly, we know that family violence is preventable. Legislative reform like this, along with our record investment, is just part of our commitment to making women's safety a national priority.

I want to finish by acknowledging some of the incredible frontline workers in the family violence field for the work that they do, every day and every night, helping those who need them the most. I'd also like to acknowledge those who are no longer with us—women who have lost their lives to family violence. We won't stop until every woman feels safe in her home, and this work is for those women.

It is no secret that, for a long time now, freedom of speech, thought and political association have been under attack in many of our institutions, and no more so than in our universities. Last year, a mob of vandals violently assaulted the UQ Liberal National Society's market day stall, covering the club's equipment and young female students in paint while spraying foul, vile and abusive threats to these students. Following the attack, the UQ Union and, disgracefully, the university administration took no steps whatsoever to hold these thuggish vandals to account.

If that is not enough of an example of how much our universities despise those who hold sensible, centre-right political views, the UQ Union has now moved to disaffiliate the UQ Liberal National Society in a damning move against freedom of speech on campus. The current UQ Union leadership—surprise, surprise—is comprised of Young Labor and Socialist Alternative students. Given that the UQ Liberal National Society was the only group to campaign against the 'ruling party' in recent student union elections, this is quite clearly a move by the UQ Union to not only silence but outlaw their only opposition on campus. That politically conflicted Labor hacks are directly linked to this decision indicates a complete lack of procedural fairness and due process. UQ's dismissive attitude towards the serious issues of probity and safety on campus is quickly diminishing its reputation as an open and inclusive space for all, no matter their political persuasion. UQ, sadly, is no longer a place that champions the contest of ideas.

I'm calling on the university administration to hold the union accountable for this disgraceful move and to ensure that the UQ Liberal National Society remains affiliated.

What we are seeing here in Australia is a Labor government ignoring the concerns of Australian families who are being impacted most grievously by a cost-of-living crisis. The Reserve Bank has again increased interest rates. We've had nine interest rate rises in nine months. Labor will always cost you more. The last time interest rates were so high was 2012, and not coincidentally, I suppose, that was the last time Labor was in power. Nine interest rate rises in nine months.

You'd think Labor would do something to try and help Australian families by fulfilling their election promise to reduce power bills by $275; you'd think that would be a sensible start. Prime Minister Albanese promised to do that 97 times during the election campaign last year; 97 times he promised he would reduce power bills by $275. He hasn't mentioned it once since becoming Prime Minister. He can go to the tennis; he can have fun at the tennis, but he hasn't uttered the number 275, the figure that dare not speak its name. The $275 is a bit like the Scarlet Pimpernel with Labor; it's hidden. They seek it here, they seek it there, they seek it everywhere! Labor and the Prime Minister are not doing anything about people's power bills. They're not delivering their promise. So what we're seeing in Australia is a cost-of-living crisis with nine interest rate rises. We've seen inflation going up. And what does the Treasurer do? He rewrites 6,000 words saying absolutely nothing. Well, Treasurer, deliver on cutting people's power bills.

This year the Women's World Cup will be co-hosted in Australia and New Zealand, a wonderful chance for everyone to get behind women's sport and the Matildas, who are, in fact, our most successful national football team. Last week both Football Australia and New Zealand Football were blindsided by a FIFA announcement that Visit Saudi, the Saudi Arabia tourism body, would be a major sponsor of the event. This outrageous decision has been widely condemned by human rights groups and activists, including Amnesty International and former Socceroo Craig Foster.

Until June 2018, Saudi Arabia enforced a ban on women driving and imprisoned many activists who tried to challenge and change this ridiculous law. Saudi Arabia's guardianship law is still in place, a system that means every woman must have a male guardian, rendering them legal minors throughout their life. While Saudi women over the age of 21 can now apply for a passport and travel abroad without permission from their male guardian, considerable male centred legal control still applies when it comes to marriage, divorce, children's issues and custody. Men retain significant rights over women that allow them to file cases for 'disobedience', forcing women to choose between a return to guardianship or imprisonment.

These laws entrench a system of gender based discrimination for women in Saudi Arabia, and neither women playing in this year's World Cup or those who will pack stadiums in Australia and New Zealand to see them play should be forced to accept this obvious attempt to rebrand its image through the guise of sports sponsorship. While the country tries to modernise its image for tourists through sponsorship of women's sporting events, Saudi Arabia continues to impose draconian prison sentences on women like Salma al-Shehab. Salma is a PhD student and mother of two young children who was sentenced to 34 years in prison in August of last year, and her crimes include having a Twitter account and retweeting women's rights activists. Same sex relationships are prohibited in Saudi Arabia, and atheism is illegal and punishable by death. I can't imagine why the Matildas might not want 'Visit Saudi' printed on their jerseys! In October of last year Noongar woman and netballer Donnell Wallam raised her concerns about Hancock Prospecting being a uniform sponsor. The Diamonds' only Indigenous player, Wallam opposed wearing the uniform bearing the Hancock logo as its CEO, Gina Rinehart, has never publicly denounced racist comments made by her father. Hancock, as we know, subsequently withdrew the funding. A public statement from Hancock Prospecting says that it considers:

… it is unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as a vehicle for social or political causes.

As though that wasn't exactly what they were attempting to do by sponsoring the Diamonds in the first place!

Forcing women into a situation where they become walking billboards for organisations—and in this case, the women's world cup, for countries—that often threaten their rights is not fair and it's not part of the job. FIFA's human rights policy prohibits any form of discrimination, including on the grounds of gender. How they can then accept this sponsorship, encouraging tourism to a country that operates every day under system of entrenched gender based discrimination baffles me.

I support the calls of Football Australia, New Zealand Football and human rights advocates in demanding FIFA reject Visit Saudi's sponsorship of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. I note that the organisation Women's Agenda is running a petition where people can sign on to call for that sponsorship to be dropped. It's up to 9,000 signatures right now. Please go and add your voice if you think that women shouldn't be walking billboards, and that they certainly shouldn't be for a country that doesn't even accept them as equal citizens.

I rise today to talk about an issue that is, to a degree, a little far removed from the work of this chamber, but is something that is close to my own heart. Anyone who knows me knows that I have a strong association with the small European nation of Albania through family ties to that country. It's that country that I wish to speak about today, and some of the goings on in that country over the last year or more.

The history of Albania of course is not a pretty one, particularly in the last 70 or 80 years with the reign of the fairly easily stated 'evil dictator' Enver Hoxha and the communist regime that oppressed millions of people. The stories I've been told about the impact that has had on the lives of people I've met and others who are related to them are nothing short of unbearable to listen to, and are things that remind me again and again of how lucky we are in this country. As a result of that period of oppression and the way in which people were oppressed—denied the right to vote to have their say, to live where they wanted to or to take up the job they wished to take up—the system they have now, post the fall of communism in the mid-90s, is one that probably isn't what we're used to here in Australia. It's a system that can't withstand some of the pressures that smaller countries with younger democracies would easily fall to. It's on that basis, and knowing some of the issues that they do have in that country, that I became very concerned when I saw some of the activities of a member of the diplomatic corps from another country—from the United States—posted to Albania.

I think anyone who has had any interaction with any member of the diplomatic corps from any country anywhere in the world understands that the role of the diplomat is to work on behalf of the country they represent in the country they are posted to—from the head of mission down to the most junior administrative staff member. It's not to become involved in the political process or any judicial process. It's not to offer commentary on political issues of the day. It is to advocate for stronger relations between your home nation—in this case we're talking about the United States—and the nation to which you are posted and represent your home nation in, which in this case is Albania. It's about forging stronger trade ties, it's about talking about security arrangements and it's about assisting fellow countrymen and women with fees and passport issues. It's those sorts of things.

As I said, anyone in this chamber or anyone who has ever had to deal with anyone from the diplomatic corps would understand that that's the work of an ambassador, a high commissioner or councillor, or anyone else. This is why I find it passing strange that the US ambassador to Albania, Ambassador Yuri Kim, has taken it upon herself to offer commentary on the goings on in that country—a country which is, as I said, is fairly volatile when it comes to its political arrangements. There's often unrest, as we've seen in many European countries, around the outcomes of elections and things that happen in between elections. So it's even more important, in a country like that—particularly when you're coming from a country that loves democracy, that is founded on freedoms and liberty—to respect the freedoms and liberties of the people in the country to which you are posted.

When I see posts from Ambassador Kim reflecting on claims of intimidation, of judges and prosecutors, that are somehow politically motivated to pervert justice, to insist on impunity for the powerful, to drag Albania back to the past, they don't sound to me like the words of a diplomatic representative; they sound rather activist. What's more, it's in a public forum. These are not communiques between a head of mission, a representative of a foreign government, and the government of that country; these are on Twitter. These are there for public consumption. Because they are the words of a head of mission of a significant freedom-loving nation, they carry with them a degree of credibility. And there are a range of posts here.

The reason I raise this is that Albania, a country very close to my own heart, is a fragile country and has a fragile democracy, and it's one that the people there, whichever side of the political divide they stand on, seek to protect. When you have representatives of nations coming in and making comments like that—from the platform of ambassador, no less—it is something we need to be very concerned about. I call that out today because I don't think it is right for other nations to interfere, through diplomatic means, in the affairs of another nation. There are appropriate channels for dealing with allegations of corruption and crime. They should be used, and they should be used by the people within that country—not by members of the diplomatic corps.

Ambassador Kim's comments, as concerning as they are from as far away as we are, here in Australia, earned the rebuke of a diplomatic colleague, the French Ambassador to Albania, Elisabeth Barsacq. She made the point that we have to leave matters Albania to the Albanians, that it's not up to us to decide these matters. Her words, in an interview with Euronews Albania, were that it's not up to foreign ambassadors to decide for Albanians. She made it very clear that it's up to those who are electors in that community to make that point.

I wanted to put on record today that these things being done—I suspect by a rogue diplomat, rather than the US government—are being noticed. I feel very strongly about it and I hope it stops.

I rise in support of the Australian Iranian diaspora. I was absolutely privileged, at the end of last year, to have the opportunity to attend a public rally in Brisbane and to see the passion, the commitment and the concern of the wonderful Queensland Iranian diaspora. I've been strengthened by the comments I've heard during the course of this week, from all parts of the chamber—from the government, from the Greens, from coalition members—providing support to our brothers and sisters in Iran and our thoughts and concerns with the Australian Iranian diaspora.

We know that there are vile things occurring on the internet, on Facebook, those who are putting up their hand and saying, 'Change must come to Iran.' Iranian people deserve freedom, deserve democracy and deserve their human rights to be protected. We know people who are raising their voices in Australia have been subject to attacks on the internet. I say to each and every one of those people: you have the support of every single senator in this place. We stand with you, we stand with our brothers and sisters in the Australian-Iranian diaspora, and we all stand united for human rights in Iran.

I'll now proceed to two-minute statements.

McDONALD () (): I rise with great enthusiasm to inform the House of an exciting development in our vitally important meat production sector. In an age when the noble art of growing food and fibre is scorned by green and vegan activists, Australian meat producers can keep holding their heads high, after more than 650 international scientists signed the Dublin declaration, endorsing the role of meat and its production methods. The declaration was made late last year at the International Summit on the Societal Role of Meat, which also highlighted the need to increase meat production to combat nutritional deficiencies affecting billions of people worldwide. The scientists also found that well-managed livestock production can improve soil health and aid carbon sequestration.

In October last year, the United Nations reported that the number of people affected by hunger has more than doubled in the past three years and almost a million people are living in famine. The Word Food Programme reports that a record 349 million people across 79 countries are facing acute food insecurity, up from 287 million in 2021. Putting it simply, we need to dramatically increase our food production. Australia, with its space, quality controls, sustainability and cutting-edge approach to animals, genetics and welfare, is perfectly placed to improve the lives of people worldwide.

Just this week I convened a gathering of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat, along with co-chair Senator Raff Ciccone, and was proud to host representatives of various national livestock bodies. Australia currently exports about 70 per cent of all of the beef, sheep and goat meat that we produce, making us the largest exporter. I wholeheartedly congratulate our meat industry and the work that they do.

I rise to put on the record my sincere thanks to the ambassador of Ukraine, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, for visiting my home state of Tasmania. The ambassador was the guest of honour at a reception hosted by the Governor of Tasmania, Her Excellency Barbara Baker AC, and he met with members of the Tasmanian-Ukrainian community at an event hosted by the Association of Ukrainians in Tasmania. I was present at both those events. I also had the pleasure of having dinner with the ambassador, joined by the President of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Stefan Romaniw, and my husband, Robert, who is of Ukrainian descent. I'm especially grateful that Mr Myroshnychenko took the time to visit our beautiful state when he has the difficult job of appealing for help to defend the survival of his country. I also thank the ambassador for agreeing to speak at the official launch of the Australia-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group, which I am hosting as chair, with deputy chair Senator Van. Many members and senators have already replied positively to our invitation, so it should be a great event.

The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has brought Australia and Ukraine closer together. It has strengthened the connection of Australians with the Ukrainian diaspora in Australia. I appreciate the extraordinary efforts of many Australians to connect with the Ukrainian community, to help and support Ukrainian refugees arriving in Australia and to contribute to the humanitarian aid in Ukraine itself. It gives me a great sense of pride that Australia is the largest non-NATO contributor of aid to Ukraine, both lethal and non-lethal. Even though Ukraine is half a world away, Australia rightly recognises that Russia cannot be allowed to succeed in its plans. If the global community had not come to Ukraine's aid, then the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country would be at risk.

In November, the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance wrote to university vice-chancellors urging them to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This definition has been widely criticised, including by progressive Jewish organisations, for its ability to stifle academic freedom, silence Palestinian voices and prevent legitimate criticism of Israel. The need to apply scrutiny to Israel's actions has never been greater. The year 2022 was the deadliest for Palestinians living under occupation since the Second Intifada ended in 2005. A day before being sworn into office, the new right-wing, conservative government of Israel explicitly called settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank its top priority. Critical commentary on these unjust and violent actions should not be silenced. The state of Israel has to be called out for its ongoing apartheid and oppression of Palestinians. Universities should be politically active places.

That is why last week Senator Steele-John and I wrote to university VCs, urging them not to adopt the IHRA definition. We firmly believe anti-Semitism, like all racism, is abhorrent and must be condemned and consider that universities should uphold and strengthen their existing policies on all forms of discrimination rather than adopt the definition. Universities must ensure all students and staffers, including those who are Palestinian, are protected and can speak freely. Unfortunately, some universities were quick to adopt the definition, but I was heartened to see the commonsense approach shown by others, including Griffith, James Cook and UQ, in indicating they did not intend to do so. I encourage other universities to show the same resolve.

I rise today to speak on the Labor government's broken election promise on urgent-care clinics and the impact that this will have on my fellow Tasmanians. We've seen the Albanese Labor government renege on a number of major policy announcements that they made during the election campaign, most notably their broken promise to save Australians an average of $275 on their power bills. It seems that making what appear to be genuine commitments during an election campaign and then delivering on those promises when elected is a completely novel concept for the Labor government. Just last month, media reports revealed yet another broken promise on a key election commitment in my home state of Tasmania. On the eve of the election, the Labor opposition's shadow finance minister promised the delivery of 50 urgent-care clinics, which would occur within the first 12 months of government, including three in Tasmania, to be located on the north-west coast, in Burnie; in the north of the state, in Launceston; and in greater Hobart. They promised that all 50 would be operational within their first year of government, yet Labor announced the expressions of interest for just three.

I would be very surprised if the government can everyone deliver one urgent-care clinic, let alone the 50 that they promised during the election campaign would be open in 12 months time. Tasmanians were promised the healthcare services in the north, in the north-west and in the south of the state, and Tasmanians deserve to know whether the government still intends to deliver these clinics in the proposed time frames. If they can't deliver that commitment that they set out in May last year to provide vital healthcare services across the state, Labor has misled the Tasmanian people.

This latest broken promise just goes to show that Labor is all talk and no delivery. The people of Tasmania deserve more respect.

I rise to speak about the importance of nutrition, what it means in the health space and how it can change lives and communities for the better. We all go on a health journey, a food journey and an exercise journey through our lives. I've spoken many times before about the importance of preventive health and how it can improve your life. Nutrition is part of the preventive strategy for a healthy, long life. Nutrition is important for a healthy physical and mental state.

When people think about nutrition, most think about a food pyramid, but nutrition is more than that. It's more important than ever that we educate ourselves as there is so much information out in the community on social media now about different diets and lifestyle choices. Nutrition is the biochemical and physiological process by which an organism uses food to support its life. In our case, it provides humans with nutrients which will be metabolised to create energy and chemical structures. Failure to obtain sufficient nutrition may call malnutrition and poor health outcomes. Ultimately, nutrition is a critical part of health and development for your entire life. Better nutrition is important. It can't be expressed more importantly than when we talk about infants, child health, maternal health, stronger immune systems, safer pregnancies and childbirths, lower risks of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and longevity. It can stave off disease and, potentially, early death. This is why it's so important that it's interconnected to the way we are educated and the way our lives are lived. I'm establishing a friends of nutrition group, and I encourage my colleagues in this chamber to be part of that new exciting friendship group.

Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Firefighters Alliance here in Canberra seeking our support and our help. These are the people who have been denied getting their jobs back. When we had COVID-19, vaccination mandates were put in place by state governments to force people to have the vaccine. What has happened is that about 250 firefighters across New South Wales and Victoria that have not been given back their jobs. I've had people in my office with 116 years of experience denied their right to provide for their families and do a job that they are passionate about and love doing for their communities.

In Victoria they three mandates for vaccinations, the last one in March 2022—they've had no vaccinations for nearly a year. In New South Wales they had two vaccinations, the last one in December 2021. The people they work around are not vaccinated and yet they cannot get their jobs back because they're not vaccinated. To me, this is bloody-mindedness by the state governments because they have allowed others back into the workforce—whether they be teachers, the police or other services—but not these people because they stood up for their rights and they believe in a choice for what goes into their body. There is no clear indication what harm they are doing. It has come out in evidence that it is not contagious. It can't be passed if you had the vaccination—sorry, it can still be passed. There is no clear evidence. It's about time that we start to support these people.

Another thing is, these people cannot go to an emergency to fight fires or national disasters. They can't cross the borders to help their mates and they can't help the Australian community. If they go and sign up as a volunteer, they can, but not as firefighters. I call on every senator here to start backing them and getting them back into the jobs where they should be.

South Australians were listening when the Prime Minister promised 97 times that they would get a $275 reduction in their energy bills, but we don't hear it now—not from the PM, not from Labor MPs and not from senators from South Australia. The cash rate is up at 3.35 per cent, and that means mortgages, too. This month Adelaide's median house price is $565,000, so with a $500,000 loan, you could be paying a total of $908 more a month.

Inflation is at 7.8 per cent, with the impact worse for fixed incomes or in regional and remote areas. South Australia is highly centralised in its geography and, amongst other factors, is affected differently and disproportionately. But you can be sure your mortgages and taxes will be higher under the actions of this Labor government.

The SA Productivity Commission Report of 2022 found South Australian retail consumers continue to face the highest electricity prices across the national energy market. In fact, they pay the highest average quarterly electricity bill in the nation at $322. That is $82 more than the lowest quarterly bill of all other states and territories. A 55 per cent power price rise is forecast over the next two years for SA households, and they've got to cop that.

What is the plan to put downward pressure on inflation, ensuring South Australian industry and small business remains viable and families can support their children? They're feeling the pain right now. They've got no problem with funding child care and cheaper prescriptions, but they need a plan for inflation—not an essay, and definitely not to be told they have to wait. The cost of living is the most important issue, particularly for South Australians but also for all Australians. Are you listening? It seems not.

I begin by saying hello to all of the Labor members who live down in the area of Farrer in the Riverina. In particular, I acknowledge the branch leadership at the Griffith branch. I pay tribute today to the life of a great member of the Griffith Labor Party, Peter Knox. He was a Labor stalwart who fought for his values all through his life, in the toughest of territories for Labor. He was a very honourable man and was highly regarded by his colleagues in the Labor Party and also by local constituents.

Peter joined the Labor Party in 1972 after attending a campaign meeting held by Gough Whitlam in a local club in Griffith. Peter was born in Ardlethan but lived most of his life in Griffith, where he worked as a qualified painter. He later ran for parliament as a Labor candidate in 2007. In the course of that battle, he achieved a sizeable 4.62 per cent swing to Labor. He later went on to serve as the senior vice president of the Griffith branch.

Peter never stopped advocating for Labor beliefs and policy. He stood on prepoll booths as a servant of democracy for the last 45 years of elections. What a great Australian. Whatever party you belong to, to stand up for your values and principles and serve democracy in that way is a profound contribution to our democratic structures.

I also know that he fought very hard for a midweek train service from Sydney to Griffith. Peter was a life member of the United Services Union, a dedicated supporter of the Sydney Swans and a big fan of cold beer at the Exies club in Griffith.

Sadly, Peter left us on 14 September last year, aged 82, after a long battle with lung disease. He will be sorely missed by his friends and family, but his life stands as tribute to his Labor values and his advocacy. Vale, Peter Knox. I pray that his memory is a blessing.

Folks with ADHD in this country are being left behind. 2023 is the year that we can and must change this. Last year in this place I shared some data from a survey that my office asked the ADHD community around the country to complete. We heard from over 10,000 community members, and the experiences that they shared with us revealed some huge gaps in our healthcare system and in the systems that are meant to support people with ADHD. I heard clearly that the wait times to get appointments are currently too long and that, if you can find a medical professional with appointments available, they are often outside of your geographical location. Getting an ADHD diagnosis in this country is just too costly. People are right now being stigmatised when accessing medications that they need, and these medications are too costly if you can finally get onto them.

It is clear that there are many decisions which this government makes that are putting barriers in the way. To the community, let me be really clear: I hear you; the Greens hear you. I'm happy to share with you that the Australian Greens party room have agreed to my proposal for a parliamentary inquiry into ADHD diagnosis and the care that is provided to the community in this country. We hope that the government will back our proposal when the time comes. This inquiry will give us the opportunity to radically transform the lives of millions. We can only address the many shortfalls in this space by first acknowledging that they exist. Together—we here in this place and you in the community—we can fix ADHD care in this country. Let's get it done.

I rise here today to speak of a most distressing situation. That situation is the disastrous effect of vaccine mandates. I know that there are some here in this place that wish this issue was forgotten and swept under the rug. But a lot of people are still suffering right now. Obviously we all know that people have lost their jobs, but arguably worse is that people have also been denied medical care. Let's be honest—it's still an experimental, zero-long-term-safety-data mRNA injection.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate the inhumane treatment of Vicki, one of my constituents in Victoria. Vicki, a 47-year-old mother of two, is suffering from serious heart failure, and she has been denied a heart transplant by the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. This denial is based on her choice not to take the mRNA injection, even though she has a legal exemption in line with ATAGI guidelines—which the hospital refuses to acknowledge. It is well documented that these injections can cause heart issues like myocarditis and pericarditis.

For Vicki, vaccination may increase the risk associated with her already failing heart. She's suffering physically and psychologically. She's currently on life support and has an external pump attached to her that helps her heart to move blood around her body. It is a matter of life and death for her. This hospital is adamant that it will not list her for lifesaving heart transplant surgery, even though she is medically ready and she has undertaken all the tests required.

Vicki is just one example of how these mandates are hurting people. We must lift the mandates. We must allow people like Vicki to get the lifesaving treatment that they need.

I rise to stand up for the magnificent doctors, midwives and nurses at Epworth Geelong's maternity service and the thousands of women and families who have relied on this vital service since 2016. They have been abandoned by their local Labor MPs, by the Albanese and Andrews Labor governments, by a lacklustre nurses union and by Epworth's cold-hearted management.

Given the tens of millions of dollars that Epworth Geelong received in state and federal funding, including to help build a full-service hospital, the closure of the maternity unit constitutes a real betrayal of our community. I condemn the appalling lack of action and lack of compassion from the member for Corio and the member for Corangamite in the other place, who stood idly by as women and families pleaded for help. Their failure to do anything is appalling.

Our public hospital system depends on a strong private health system and, as Senator Ruston made clear after we met with the Epworth management, Labor's health minister has a workforce crisis on his hands and rather than working with his state counterparts he is leaving regional communities high and dry, including the people of Geelong. In the fastest-growing region in the country we cannot afford to lose any health services, public or private, especially as state Labor has put the Barwon Women's and Children's facility on the backburner.

I also condemn Epworth, which, driven by cost cutting, ran a sham consultation and recruitment process to justify closing its maternity unit. It was so seriously misleading its two obstetric practices based there that this could constitute a breach of the law, which is why I've reported Epworth to the ACCC.

I congratulate my Liberal parliamentary colleagues who have stood up for Epworth. If we had been in power, this never would have happened. Labor and Epworth, hang your heads in shame!

Do you remember as a little kid getting on the train, having the wind on your face as it chugged down the coastline and hearing the sounds of the engine and the wheels on the track? Tassie doesn't have many passenger trains anymore, and I think we're missing out. We need to stop tourists turning left on the Bass Highway and driving straight to Launnie and Hobart. We need them on the other side. There are a lot of great things happening on the coast, but we need something to make a splash.

The Don River Railway is sitting right there and is ready to expand. It's going to cost money. The former federal government promised $20 million during the election, but, unfortunately, those guys didn't win. Now the ball is in Labor's court. The Don River Railway wants to take passengers from Devonport to Penguin. Imagine the tourism dollars in that for the north-west coast—you beauty! To do this they need money to fix the tracks. They will build a cafe, restaurant and event facility and a shiny new visitor centre so tourists can learn about the history of the railway and about all of the steam trains, not just in Tasmania but across the world. There will be a special play area for the kids and tours of the workshops where they restore the old trains and carriages.

A passenger train will make tourists want to spend more nights on the coast. They'll spend more money in our hotels, cafes, shops and markets instead of going down south to Hobart. No offence—there is competition between the north and south—but, bugger it, we want it.

I know the team behind the project have put in a submission for the May budget. Money is tight and a lot of things need funding. Seriously, this project could be an absolute game changer for Penguin, Devonport and the surrounding towns on the north-west coast. It will become a tourist icon—although it already pretty much is—for us.

I'd like to see other Tasmanian senators show their support for this project too. We're up here to help Tasmania; that's our job. This project is a damn good idea and should receive support. I'll be the first one lining up to get back on that steam train and have another shot at it. I'd like to go further than about five kilometres—30 or 40 kilometres—and buy coffee 20 minutes away. That would be fabulous for the town of Penguin.

I'll come on that train with you, Senator Lambie. I'll even shout you a coffee when we get to the other end. Absolutely; I couldn't think of something I'd rather do in the great state of Tasmania.

I refer to what appears to be, from media reports, the Prime Minister's backflip with respect to the provision of information to voters in the forthcoming referendum. If this is in fact correct, I'd like to congratulate the Prime Minister for listening to the arguments which the coalition has put forward, that the Australian people deserve to know the detail. The Australian people deserve to hear the arguments, both for and against, put in an appropriate, respectful and civil fashion, and then make their own decision. That is the process which we should be embracing. The government should provide an information pamphlet outlining the yes and the no cases. And the government should provide equal funding to the official yes and no campaigns. That should be provided. Then it is up to the Australian people to come to their decision

Just in that regard, I'll go back to that beautiful piece of literature by philosopher John Stuart Mills, his essay on liberty. He said that the corollary of freedom of speech is the right of people to hear the arguments. That's the corollary of someone's right to freedom of speech: the right of the audience to hear both sides of the argument and then to form their own view based on their own contemplation of the arguments for and against in a civil manner, like we saw in this chamber earlier today—in particular, from Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator McCarthy. That was civil, respectful discourse.

EEN () (): This week we've learned that once again the Liberal-National parties are going to turn their backs on manufacturing in this country. At the last election, Labor was very clear about our commitment: we want to bring manufacturing home, and we will bring manufacturing back to regional Queensland. The National Reconstruction Fund will invest $15 billion in rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry. It will provide loans, equity investment and guarantees for modern manufacturing, clean energy, defence and medical projects and technologies. It has been carefully designed as a targeted, strategic investment to make sure that we secure our long-term security and prosperity.

And it will create good secure jobs in my home state of Queensland. But those opposite have already said that they're going to vote against the National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund for manufacturing in this country. They have form in turning their backs on manufacturing, and I'm yet to understand their motives for doing this. What I'm yet to figure out is exactly why they have turned their backs on Aussie workers and Australian manufacturing once again. Perhaps they can help me out? Are they voting against the legislation because they're embarrassed by the legacy they left for Australian manufacturing? Do they not want to admit that they oversaw the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry that Australians were once proud of? Is it not the LNP's cup of tea to deliver this important investment because there will be investment in renewables, which I know some of the people opposite could get a little bit upset about? Did they decide against supporting manufacturing because there will actually be a return on investment and good, secure jobs for regional Queenslanders?

They killed the car industry, they've smashed manufacturing—

Thank you, Senator Green, your time has expired. Senator Thorpe.

I rise today as a senator for the grassroots black sovereign movement, a movement that has existed in this country for tens of thousands of generations. It's a movement that I was raised in, and a movement that my children and grandchildren are being raised in.

Sovereignty has never been ceded in this country. The generations of staunch black activists who came before me fought not for themselves but for the continuation and survival of the oldest culture on this planet, and for the generations to inherit their cultural birthright that is sovereignty unceded. Sovereignty may seem like a new and uncomfortable concept within the walls of this building because this place was built with a vision that my sovereign body would never walk a foot in here and that my ancestors' stories of fight, of pain and of survival would not survive the war this building declared on them, on us and on me. Well, I stand here to declare that we are still here. We are here, and I'm proud to be guided by black excellence! (Time expired)

We will now move to question time.

My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Was the Assistant Treasurer reflecting government policy on interest rates this morning when he said, 'We think that what's already in the system should do the job to ensure that we can dampen down demand'?

I missed the end of the question, but I think I've got it.

I'm happy to repeat it.

If you don't mind—sorry, I just missed the end of it.

Do it with a bit more feeling this time!

Thank you, Senator Ayres I'll do that. Was the Assistant Treasurer reflecting government policy on interest rates this morning when he said, 'We think what's already in the system should do the job to ensure that we can dampen down demand'?

I haven't actually seen the transcript of that interview, but I do understand that the Assistant Treasurer was outlining our government's plan to deliver on cost-of-living relief. He also indicated that the RBA has a tough job to do and that the RBA is independent—and those statements are correct. The RBA does have a difficult job to do. It is independent of government. It makes decisions based on the information that it has available to it at the time. The government's position reflects that. It is an independent body making decisions on monetary policy in this country. The area where the government have something to do is in making sure that our decision-making, the decisions we make in relation to the budget and others, do not make the job of the Reserve Bank harder, and that is the government's position.

Senator Fawcett, a first supplementary?

Despite the minister saying that what they have in place would 'dampen down demand', the RBA said in its statement yesterday:

The Board expects that further increases in interest rates will be needed over the months ahead to ensure that inflation returns to target and that this period of high inflation is only temporary.

The Assistant Treasurer said this morning, 'I'm hoping if this is not the last'—he's talking about interest rate rises—'it's near the last of the rate rises.' Minister, why does the Albanese government contradict the RBA?

The government isn't contradicting the RBA. I've read the governor's statement on the monetary policy decision, and it's very clear that the Reserve Bank is making decisions about how to deal with the inflation challenge and how to return inflation to more normal levels. It's a challenge not only for the Reserve Bank but for the government as well.

Of course, the bank needs to make these decisions independent of any influence. We have total and utter trust in them making the decisions that they need to make to ensure that inflation doesn't remain high for longer. And they are saying that they are seeing inflation moderating. The challenge for the government in working with the Reserve Bank and not against it is to make sure that the decisions we take are supportive and work alongside monetary policy and not against it, which is why the decisions we're taking in the budget are informed by that, dealing— (Time expired)

Senator Fawcett, a second supplementary?

The increase in the cash rate to 3.35 per cent, the eighth successive rise under your government, will add more than $10,000 in repayments for the average Australian family with a variable-rate mortgage. With no plan to tackle inflation, a treasurer distracted by writing essays and an assistant treasurer who contradicts the central bank, isn't it the case that Australians will keep paying more under your government?

Conveniently, that question left off the fact that there was an interest rate increase during the month of May, when you were in government, and that the highest quarter of inflation growth was in the March quarter last year.

Who was in government then?

And who was in government then? This is an inflation challenge that we inherited. We inherited this challenge. The government has a plan to deal with it. It's to deal with cost-of-living relief, where we don't add to inflation. It's to deal with some of the supply chain problems that we've been seeing as a result of the war in Ukraine and the end of the pandemic. The third thing is to deal with the budget mess that we inherited from you lot and to show spending restraint in some of the decisions that we take in the May budget. So it's incorrect to say that the government doesn't have a plan. We do have a plan. We are implementing the plan, and we look forward to more of that in the budget.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. The situation in Turkiye and also in Syria continues to deteriorate. What else will the government do to assist those in affected areas?

Thank you, Senator Sheldon, for the question. I know I speak for all in this chamber when I say that we have been watching the heartbreaking scenes from Turkiye and Syria with horror.

Yesterday, as I indicated to the chamber, the Prime Minister announced an initial commitment of $10 million in humanitarian aid to support the people affected. I'm also pleased to announce that earlier today, following advice from my department, I agreed to activate an AUSASSISTPLAN to deploy an urban search-and-rescue team of up to 72 personnel to Turkiye to assist local authorities. Our National Emergency Management Agency, NEMA, is now conducting an urgent assessment to ensure the safety of Australian personnel. NEMA is working closely with Fire and Rescue NSW, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the ADF to coordinate the deployment as soon as possible. These are urban search-and-rescue specialists, highly trained to locate, deliver medical assistance to, and remove victims who've been trapped or impacted by a structural collapse.

These are extremely difficult times. I think all of us have been horrified by the scenes of devastation and the stories of human tragedy that we're witnessing. There is also so much heroism and compassion for one's fellow man, woman and child that is on display in these areas, which have already been so devastated in many cases. If we are able to assist, notwithstanding that we are a long way away, I'm sure all of us would want the government to support our personnel to engage in such assistance.

Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on assistance being provided to Australians and their loved ones impacted by the unfolding emergency?

I know that this is distressing, not only to all Australians but particularly to members of the Turkish-Australian and Syrian communities, particularly to those with loved ones in the areas. I thought Senator Birmingham's contribution yesterday, where he spoke about their experience, was very moving.

Australian diplomatic missions in Ankara, Beirut and Istanbul are working closely with local authorities to ascertain the welfare of our citizens. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is providing consular assistance, including to the families of four Australians who were in the region at the time of the earthquake and, I regret to say, at this stage remain unaccounted for. Obviously, their safety is our immediate priority, and consular officials in Ankara are working with local authorities and others on the ground to assist them. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working to provide consular assistance to around 40 other Australians and their families who were in the earthquake area. (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary question?

Can the minister provide an update to the Senate on how Australia's initial contribution is assisting those on the ground?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced, as I said, the initial $10 million contribution in humanitarian aid. Today, I can provide some update to senators about how these resources are being used and are intended to be used. UNICEF have commenced assessment of water infrastructure and health infrastructure damage. They have dispatched more than 1,000 prepositioned water sanitation and hygiene kits and are prepositioning another 10,000 kits. UNICEF is also leading the education response for displaced families seeking shelter in schools. Local Red Cross and Red Crescent teams have been assisting with search and rescue, transportation to hospitals and first aid, and distribution of essential non-food items. We will continue to work with partners to do all that is possible to assist those affected by this tragedy.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister in October 2019 supposedly led the charge to kick John Setka out of the Australian Labor Party, where he said, 'John Setka isn't welcome to stay as a member and I am pleased he is gone,' and 'his values aren't the same as Labor's'. Given that Mr Setka's CFMMEU division gave the Australian Labor Party over $1 million in the last financial year, can you confirm that Mr Setka's supposed expulsion from the party was nothing but a fancy charade, considering you still accept his tainted money?

It's interesting, isn't it?

The old broken record!

Yes. We can always assume that those opposite will fight about climate change and will unite around trade unions—against trade unions, one of the few things you actually agree on. The Prime Minister has made clear, as leader of the party, his views about Mr Setka's personal membership—personal membership—of the Australian Labor Party. There are many people who might point to the failure of those opposite at times to deal with some people in their ranks. But the Prime Minister, as leader of the party in opposition, was clear about his view of Mr Setka's membership of the Australian Labor Party, and that matter was dealt with by the party organisation. The matter of donations is a matter, as you know, for the party organisation.

Senator Scarr, a first supplementary?

I'm not sure what the High Court have said about climate change, but I know what they've said about the CFMEU. They've actually called it 'a recidivist offender' and said that the CFMEU considers law-breaking to be a 'cost of doing business'. Can you confirm that the Prime Minister is willing to ignore the behaviour of Mr Setka and the CFMEU because of their $4.3 million in donations to the Labor Party?

That allegation is untrue, and the senator knows it. We have been clear about our view that law-breaking, criminal conduct, in any context is unacceptable.

A second supplementary, Senator Scarr?

In distinct contrast to the Prime Minister, Premier Malinauskas intervened to ensure South Australia Labor returned a donation of $125,000 from the Victorian CFMEU. When will Prime Minister Albanese show the same leadership as Premier Malinauskas and return federal Labor's multi-million dollar donations from the CFMMEU?

As I've indicated in my previous answer, the Prime Minister has made clear his views about Mr Setka. He has made clear his views and the Australian Labor Party's views about compliance with the law, and matters of donations are the responsibility of the party organisation.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Next month marks 20 years since the Howard government's participation in the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, a war that killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and left millions more with a trauma that will last generations. Is it the government's view that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law and conventions?

As the senator would know, the Australian Labor Party at the time placed its views on these issues on the public record. I don't intend to add to them and nor do I believe at this stage in 2023 that this is the most important foreign policy priority that the government faces. The more important foreign policy priority that this government and this parliament faces is the fact that we live in the most difficult strategic circumstances since World War II. We have to make decisions as a people, as a government and as a parliament about how we deal with that.

The government have been clear that we will deal with that by utilising all levers of Australian power, through investing in strategic capability but also by investing in our diplomatic capability—investing in our diplomacy and in our relationships—because that is part of how we can try and keep Australians safe, how we can work to keep Australians safe at a time when we face these difficulties in our region. I've spoken at length about this.

It may be that you wish to engage in historic accounting. That is a matter for you, Senator Steele-John. My focus is very much on what we have to do now and into the future.

Senator Steele-John, a first supplementary question?

N () (): Minister, of all the responses I had prepared for, an effective 'no comment' was not one of them. Let me try one more time. The United Nations has declared the invasion illegal. The advice given to your party was that the invasion was illegal. The broad legal consensus is that the US invasion was illegal. Is it the current view of the Australian government that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law and convention? (Time expired)

I don't propose to add to the response I gave to the primary question because it is the same question. I'm sure through estimates you can speak to the international lawyers in the room, if you wish to do so, because this ultimately is a question that might be determined by an international tribunal or court, but as foreign minister at this time, given the responsibility and privilege of the job I have, I am really clear about what my priorities are and I outlined them in the earlier answer.

Order! Senator Steele-John, before I invite you to ask your second supplementary question, I'll remind you to ask the question and refrain from commentary. So please ask your second supplementary.

Twenty years on, will the Labor government, in the name of all who have died and all who continue to suffer, commit to releasing all relevant documentation surrounding the advice to the Howard government about the invasion of Iraq so that Australians can judge for themselves the actions that were committed in their name and whether those actions were illegal, given that we went to war without a single politician being asked to cast a vote?

In relation to the first part of the question, I will take on notice what documents can or can't be released. I'm sure we can have a conversation about this further at estimates. As I said, obviously the Australian Labor Party has made its previous views on these matters clear.

But I would also point to your last comment. I think your last comment suggests that, as per the Greens policy, there should be a parliamentary vote before the executive can commit the ADF to any conflict or to any other part of the world. I have made it clear in discussions in estimates that that's not a view that I share. It is not a view that the government share. We do believe in ministerial accountability. We do believe the parliament should be entitled to scrutinise the decisions of the executive. The executive should account to the parliament for such a decision. But it is, in our view, important for the security of the country that that remains a power and prerogative of the executive.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Albanese government is strengthening Medicare?

I thank Senator Marielle Smith for the question. Last week, the Prime Minister chaired the National Cabinet meeting which included consideration of the report from the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. Senators will recall that Labor went to the election with a commitment to improve primary care through a $750 million commitment to strengthen Medicare and the establishment of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce—

Opposition senators interjecting—

to take the interjection—to establish urgent care centres across Australia, which we are also doing, and we're working with the states and territories to improve access to after-hours emergency care.

I should point out that we were the only party at the 2022 election to commit to additional investment in Medicare. That's probably not surprising, in the sense that the former government had done everything they could to undermine Medicare over the years, cutting it and capping the indexation rates so that it affected general practice.

Labor is the only party for Medicare. We know that mob over there wanted to end it. We know you want to undermine it. It's the backbone of our healthcare system. It's the foundation that has provided the care that Australians need, deserve and expect. The Australian people expect their government to look at ways to invest in Medicare—not to weaken it, not to cut it, but to look at ways to make it work better for them and put downward costs on the expenses of accessing health care. We know we've got a big challenge ahead. We've got an ageing population, more chronic disease and complex care needs, and the Australian community need and expect Medicare to be there to meet their needs. We can't do this alone. We will work in partnership with the states and territories to make sure the health system meets the needs of the future.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Order, Senator Wong! Order, Senator Ruston! Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary?

Can the minister outline why Medicare needs strengthening?

Yes, I can. I thank Senator Smith for the question. Primary health care is in crisis. The shadow minister herself has said that our health system is in crisis at a number of levels, and she even went on to say, 'Perhaps we should have been more challenging in reform.'

Opposition senators interjecting—

'Woah, what does that mean?'

A government senator: Who said that?

That was Senator Ruston, shadow minister for health. 'We should have been more challenging in reform.' Hmm, what does that mean? Co-payments? It might be! Cuts? It could be! They were the reforms that the government when you were in power sought to put in place. The crisis in primary health care is the product of deliberate decisions made by the former government. There is no person in Australia who bears more responsibility for this than the now Leader of the Opposition, a man voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in a generation. It's a hard award to get, but he won it!

Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary?

TH () (): Can the minister outline the major challenges to strengthening Medicare?

Thank you, Senator Smith; I can. There are challenges, including the considerable workforce challenges that we inherited and that we are dealing with. One of the biggest challenges we're dealing with now is the legacy of terminating measures—unfunded measures in the Health and Aged Care portfolio—left to us by the coalition. We see what must have happened when the former health and aged-care ministers went to ERC. They must have gone to ERC and said, 'We need some extra money for these things,' and the ERC must have said to them, 'Well, you can have it for one year, maybe two years, and then it's going to end.' That's what we're dealing with now: hundreds of measures that terminate, that just end. At 30 June—no more money. 'Sorry, adult dental program. We know that adults still have teeth and might still need dentists' services after 30 June, but we're not going to fund it.' It's a terminating measure. Well, we're dealing with that. We're cleaning up your mess.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister has stated that an Indigenous voice to parliament will consult Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on matters that affect them. If that's the case, will you please provide the Australian people and me with the government's list of all the matters which don't affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

Given I'm asked about the Voice, I would like to acknowledge, if I may, the ten leaders from Empowered Communities who are in the President's Gallery today as part of their visit to Canberra to advocate, from the grassroots, for constitutional recognition through the Voice to Parliament.

Senator Hanson, I appreciate your position on the Voice. I think you have made that clear, and probably no answer I will give you will satisfy you, because you have made your opposition to this clear. I would first make the point that the Voice is about two things. It is about recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution, and it is about consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on matters that affect them.

In terms of the various aspects of detail, I would make two points. First, the referendum working group have already offered principles of what the Voice would look like. The second point I make is: if Australians see fit to change our Constitution in the way I hope they do, you, alongside every other member and Senator in this parliament, will have a say in how that Voice operates, because it is parliament that will legislate. There will be consultation and there will be legislation—just as you have a right, at the moment, to respond to and deal with legislation that comes before the chamber.

Senator Hanson, on a point of order?

Thank you, President. The point of order is on a matter of relevance. More than half the time the minister has to respond to my question has passed. I asked directly about what matters don't affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. She hasn't even touched on that whatsoever. It's a matter of relevance.

Thank you, Senator Hanson. You've raised a point of order. You asked at the beginning of your question a broad question about the Voice. You referred to comments the Prime Minister had made, so Minister Wong is being relevant.

Senator Hanson, I am trying to respond very honestly, because the reality is those matters will be the subject of a discussion in this parliament and a discussion with the community, should Australians vote for a constitutional recognition.

Order, Senator Hanson! Senator Hanson, order! You have asked you question.

Senator Hanson, I have called you to order. It's an order, not a request. The minister is answering your question. You may not like the answer, but she's answering your question. Please continue, Minister Wong.

Senator Hanson—through you, President—what Australians are being asked to vote on is a principle of whether there should be a voice. The detail will come from the parliament and the government that is elected by the people, and it is for the parliament and future parliaments to determine the detail of how it works, including the issues that you describe.

Senator Hanson, a first supplementary question.

Last month, the Minister for Indigenous Australians said that if the proposed Voice to Parliament had been established earlier then we would not be where we are with escalating violence and crime in Alice Springs. Will the minister please provide the direct evidence supporting this claim, and does the Prime Minister support this claim?

Senator Hanson, I think that everybody in this place, I would hope, understands that the challenges that we see—and some of our colleagues are living in Alice Springs and in the Northern Territory—are not new challenges, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I would hope that the principle is that if you work with local communities and listen to local communities you achieve better outcomes. Senator Hanson, we come from very different political places, but I recognise that you do work in your community, you do engage with your community, and I would think you would understand that policy is intrinsically better if there is an engagement with, and a listening to, the community. The Voice is about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people having a say. That's what it's about. I think we are stronger when people have a say.

Senator Hanson, a second supplementary question.

I hope you can answer my third question, because I've had no response to my second question, or my first one, for that matter. If the referendum rejects the Voice being inserted in the Constitution, will the government legislate a Voice that will clearly be against the will of the people?

We are working to achieve change to our Constitution in accordance with the wishes of so many of our First Nations people, who have very eloquently articulated this offer of recognition, consultation and a path forward together in the Uluru statement. We are hopeful that there will be enough people of goodwill in this place and in the community to ensure that we are able to do what was sought and insert a provision into our Constitution. That is what we are doing, so—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson.

I rise on relevance to the question.

Senator Hanson—

I asked a question. If the referendum does not get up, will they legislate? Yes or not? Very simple.

Senator Hanson, I've called you to order. You stand up and you ask a point of order. You talked about the outcome of the referendum, and that is exactly what the minister is referring to. Please continue, Minister.

We are optimistic and we are hopeful about the referendum, and that is the focus of the government's work. I don't propose to get into what-ifs, because our job as the government is to do what we said we would if we were elected. Our job is to keep faith with the commitment we gave not only to the Australian people in the broad but to our First Nations Australians, and we will do so.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. How many Australians have died from COVID in residential aged care since the 2022 election?

I'm not sure I have figures since the election—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, I can give you—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, I've got the answer—

Minister Gallagher, I ask you to resume your seat. The minister was part-way through a sentence and then the chamber on my left, particularly, became so disorderly, I could not hear her response. I would ask you to listen in respectful silence.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, as at 2 February, there have been 5,067 deaths nationally: 686 in 2020, 226 in 2021, 3,855 in 2022 and 300 in 2023. Now, given the seriousness of the issue that we are talking about, which is the passing of older Australians in aged-care facilities, I think your behaviour just then was disgusting. You ask a question like that and you behave like that. Absolutely disgusting. I had the information. The difference between me and what happened to Senator Colbeck is that I actually had the information. I'm aware of the numbers. I'm aware of what's happening in aged care. So have a laugh over there, by all means, and disrespect the thousands of people in aged care.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Cash, I have a senator on her feet. Senator Urquhart?

I would ask Senator McGrath to withdraw the statement—what he called Senator Gallagher.

Senator McGrath, I did not hear the comments that were made by you or any other senator, but I would ask you to reflect and, in the interest of the good spirit of the chamber, ask you to withdraw.

I withdraw everything that I called Senator Gallagher.

Senator McGrath, when I ask senators to withdraw, I ask them to do it respectfully. You did not do it respectfully. I ask you to do it respectfully.

The point of order taken by Senator Urquhart asked me to withdraw a comment. You said you didn't know which comment. You asked me to respectfully withdraw a comment. I said many things. I withdraw all of them to assist the smooth running of the chamber.

Senator McGrath, you did not withdraw respectfully.

I withdraw respectfully.

Senator Liddle, were you on a point of order?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senators Wong and McGrath! I'm still waiting. Senator Liddle, your first supplementary question.

My point of order is on relevance. The question was specific to—

I understand that Senator Gallagher has finished her response.

That wasn't indicated.

I'll lead you to your first supplementary question.

r LIDDLE () (): Why did your government change the way aged-care deaths are reported on the exact same day that we saw more aged-care residents had died from COVID in eight months under your watch than in 2½ years under the coalition? What are you trying to hide?

Can I again just say that any death in relation to COVID-19 and, indeed, in residential aged care, is a tragedy. I think the behaviour of those opposite in the previous question reflects on them and speaks for itself.

Data on the number of deaths in residential aged care is reported directly from aged-care providers to the department. This is not an official dataset and is used for aged-care surveillance purposes. It is not directly comparable with published figures on the total number of COVID-19 deaths in Australia.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

I rise on a point of order. I think the question was very specific—around why they changed the means of reporting and not actually asking for a reiteration of how that is reported.

I think the minister is being relevant, but I shall listen carefully. Minister, please continue.

I reject the assertion and the implication of the way the question is put. That's my answer to the question. I am explaining about how aged-care deaths in Australia are reported. If you're not interested in that, that's not my problem. You asked the question, I'm trying to answer it. The review and adjustment to COVID death reporting, including the timing to release the updated data, was a decision of the department. The Minister for Health was briefed in advance of the release— (Time expired)

Senator Liddle, a second supplementary question.

In February 2022, the now Prime Minister said that deaths in aged care were a measure of performance. We know that more aged-care residents have now died from COVID in eight months under the Albanese Labor government than in the entire first 2½ years of the pandemic. Given this tragic statistic, will the Prime Minister now admit that he has completely failed on this important measure of performance and step up to the job of protecting older Australians?

Well, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the mortality data—and I will correct the record, if I have to, but the mortality data that I've seen is decreasing compared to the first waves, when residents in aged care were completely unprotected because of the way you rolled out the vaccine rollout. When you rolled out the vaccine rollout, you didn't meet your own targets. You set yourself the targets. What we saw was people in residential aged care who were completely unprotected.

Honourable senators i nterjecting—

Order! Senator Wong?

I can barely hear Senator Gallagher and she's just here.

I have asked all members in this place to refrain from commenting and arguing across the chamber and from calling out repeatedly. I would ask once again that you listen respectfully. Minister.

Thank you. The difference between the approach now and the numbers of people with the different waves is that back in 2020 people were left completely unprotected—completely unprotected!—because of the bungle in the rollout. What we have now with omicron, is that the vast majority, in fact very high numbers, of people in residential aged care are protected through the vaccination program.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt. Minister, the Samuel review found that our logging laws—the Regional Forest Agreements, or RFAs—had weaker protections than EPBC legislation and inadequate Commonwealth oversight.

I thank Senator Rice for the question. I recognise this is an issue that she has a long history of activism in. There are two states in Australia which have now decided to phase out native forestry, those being Victoria and Western Australia, but there are a number of states that have not made that decision. As you point out, native forestry around a number of states is regulated through regional forestry agreements.

The reality is that, at this point in time at least, we are not in a position as a country to meet all our timber needs through plantation forestry. It's estimated that plantations supply something like 85 to 90 per cent of timber, paper and products in Australia, and it is completely unrealistic to think that if we were to ban native forestry immediately in the form that you're suggesting we would be able to meet our timber, paper and other wood product needs—

Senator Henderson!

Senator Henderson!

quite apart from the impact such a decision would have on regional communities and the jobs that are delivered through those industries. When I here these sorts of comments from the Greens, it's a little like the argument that we should be shutting down all coal and gas tomorrow as well, ignoring the fact that it would bring the electricity network to a halt and people's lights would go out. Similarly, if we were to end native forestry today in the way that you suggest, we wouldn't be able to meet our timber, paper and other wood product needs. Unfortunately for the Greens, some of us choose to live in the real world, where we need to be making decisions about what will actually happen in the world. We as a government support responsible, sustainable forestry. Minister Plibersek flagged an intention to look at how this practice is conducted, in consultation with stakeholders, but we need to be real.

Before I come to Senator Rice—Senator Henderson, when I call you to order, that's what I expect. Senator Rice, a first supplementary question?

At COP15 the Australian government committed to take urgent action for zero extinctions after 2030. This are hundreds of rare, threatened and endangered animals and plants that live in and are part of our forests, including the critically endangered wollert, or Leadbeater's possum, and the greater glider. Minister: in this real world, the RFA are allowing these species to continue their trajectory to extinction. Will you scrap the RFAs and end native forest logging as part of your government commitment— (Time expired)

Thank you, Senator Rice. I've already outlined the reasons it would not be a prudent move to do the kinds of things that you're talking about, whether we're talking about supplies or regional economies and jobs. But it is the case that we do want to make sure that Australia's forestry industry is as sustainable as possible, and that's why Minister Plibersek, in responding to the Samuel review said:

Regional forestry agreements are designed to have regard to environmental values, such as old growth forests and wilderness, endangered species, and World Heritage matters.

But they are currently exempt from the EPBC Act—which make them unique.

As part of these reforms, our government will begin a process of applying our new National Environmental Standards to Regional Forestry Agreements.

We will consult with stakeholders on how this will be done.

We want to make sure that the management of our forestries in this country are done as sustainably as possible, but we need to meet some of the current timber and paper product needs that our country has. We flagged an intention to consult with stakeholders as we apply those EPBC principles. (Time expired)

Senator Rice, a second supplementary question?

Scientific analysis shows that ending native forest logging would have significant benefits to the climate and be the easiest and most significant land use change that could be implemented to help Australia meet its carbon reduction targets. Minister, given your government's commitment to tackling the climate crisis, won't you scrap the RFAs and end native forest logging?

As I say, Senator Rice, I invite you to let the Australian people know how we would meet our timber and paper product needs if we were to end native forestry immediately, in the way that you suggest. I also invite you to explain to the Australian people what effect on the environment it would have if, as a result of ending native forestry overnight, Australian importers were to instead turn to forestry activities overseas, which have far worse environmental standards than our own country does.

What we're trying to do is make sure that we have a sustainable forestry industry and that we can meet our timber and paper product needs but that we have strong environmental principles around it. That's exactly what Minister Plibersek has flagged as part of the implementation of the Samuel review.

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, my good friend Senator Farrell. International students make an important contribution to the economy and the diversity of communities across Australia. How is the international education sector faring in the aftermath of the pandemic, and what are the long-term effects of the former government's complete lack of support and the former Prime Minister telling students to go home?

What are the long-term effects of drinking your wine?

I'll take that interjection. I'll talk to you afterwards, but they're all good! I thank Senator O'Neill for that question. I know she has a great interest in education, particularly the topic of her question, which was international education.

Regrettably, international education was one of hardest hit sectors of our economy during the pandemic. With students unable to travel to Australia, the former government's bungling meant that many educational institutions were not able to access financial support. Worst of all was the damage done by former prime minister Scott Morrison, who damaged our international reputation by telling international students to go home. Scott Morrison—

What!

Yes, that's what he said, Senator Watt. Scott Morrison made it clear that his government—

Senator Farrell, I remind you to refer to people in the other place by their correct titles.

Sorry, Madam President. Former prime minister Scott Morrison made it very clear that his government didn't care about international students, didn't care about educational institutions and, most importantly, didn't care about those who relied on them to support their families. The message to parents of international students was that the Morrison government didn't care about their children and didn't want them here. In a single press conference the former Prime Minister caused a massive setback to a $40.3 billion industry.

Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary?

With international travel normalising and international students able to resume their education on campuses here in Australia, what is the current state of play for the international education sector?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her question. Of course, we hope that international travel is normalising, but, no thanks to the previous government, the international education sector remains one of the largest export industries. Its recovery is testament to the quality education our institutions offer and the hard work of industry and government agencies. In December, there were over 452,200 student visa holders in Australia. It's not at pre-COVID levels yet, but the industry, pleasingly, is recovering.

The Albanese Labor government is proud to be welcoming back international students from across the world. While China is still our largest and most valuable market, diversification is occurring, with growth in other markets including India, Nepal, Colombia and Vietnam. Last year, Austrade supported the Australia-India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership— (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?

Looking to the future, what is the Australian government doing to support the international education sector to assist the recovery you were describing?

Thank you, Senator O'Neill. A lot more than the previous government, is the answer to that question. My agency, Austrade, which is responsible for promoting Australia's international education offerings globally, has been working hard to support the sector's recovery.

Dedicated staff in 36 locations provide advice, support and connections to registered Australian international education clients, Austrade's International Educational Centre of Excellence overseas, the sector strategy, and manages the Study Australia website. Recent upgrades to the Study Australia website have new users increase by 24.7 per cent, in 2022, with over 7.5 million unique page views up 28 per cent on the year. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. At the last election, Labor promised a building capacity/building community policy aimed at increasing capacity in the Australian charities sector. In the October budget, the Albanese government committed to a Productivity Commission review of the framework that incentivises philanthropic giving to charities. Can the minister confirm that as of today no further announcements have been made on either of the Labor Party promises?

Thank you, Senator Smith. I never know what question's going to come from you. In respect to the chamber, I'll have to take that on notice. Hang on, I will see if I can find something on my feet. I'm not sure that's the same question I got asked—in the interests of getting you an accurate answer, Senator Smith, I think it wasn't in my top list of issues to prepare for in question time today but I will come back to the chamber with any information.

Senator Dean Smith, a first supplementary?

Really, you should trust me first. Does the minister agree that the charities sector, facing unprecedented demand due to the cost-of-living crisis and Labor's insufficient plan to address it, deserves a government that prioritises charities' urgent needs and delivers on its promises?

tor GALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Smith for the question. I would say that, in the budget, one of the largest line items we had was to increase indexation to community organisations, some of whom are charities, who provide services to the community, in response to the fact that they had been inappropriately—or the indexation that had applied was not adequate and not allowing them to continue to meet some of the costs they were incurring. That was in the order of several hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was in response to a request from ACOSS and some in the charity sector to have a look at the indexation when we came into government.

I undertook to do that. It was unfair. It had been left in an inadequate state. It hadn't been addressed. It was, in a finance sense, quite costly to deal with, but we did that in the first budget, in respect of the work that they do, the value that we place in it and the fact that we recognised their costs were increasing and they needed extra support.

Senator Smith, a second supplementary?

AN SMITH () (): The indexation matter is a good one but it's not the subject of this question. How does the minister explain the government dragging its feet on delivering its modest commitments to Australian charities at a time when they are needed the most?

I thank Senator Smith for the question. I don't accept the proposition that he puts. I know that my colleague the member for Fenner, who has responsibility for this area, has been working closely and is focused on this area. I just don't have an update of where all of that work is. But I have undertaken to come back to the chamber and provide that information and that update. Perhaps it's something that we can explore in estimates, Senator Smith, now that I'm aware of your interest in it. I will make sure that officials and myself are briefed fully, so we can take you through all the work that has been done. I know that the focus of the assistant minister for Treasury has been this area. I have some information on fundraising reform, but I'm not sure it answers your question.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, also. I'm confident that my question is at the top of your priority list, Senator Gallagher, and also at the top of the priority list of the whole Albanese government. Can you please update the Senate on how the Albanese government is taking action to close the gender pay gap?

I thank Senator Walsh for the question, and I can assure the chamber this is a question I prepared for earlier, but it is an important subject. I'm proud to be a member of a government that's introducing the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill in the parliament later today. This is an important step forward in advancing gender equality in Australian workplaces. Together with the remade instruments under the act, it fulfils a key election commitment of our government to close the gender pay gap at work including by boosting pay gap transparency and taking action to help close the gender pay gaps within organisations.

On average, women working full time can expect to earn 14.1 per cent less than men per week in their pay packets. Current projections suggest that this will take another 26 years for this gap to close. This is too long, and women shouldn't have to wait nor should our daughters or those girls being born today. It's not fair. We need to address it.

With these reforms, we will, for the first time in Australia, publish the gender pay gaps of businesses that employ 100 or more people. The reform only covers employers that already report to WGEA, and it will be drawn on existing reporting, so employers themselves will not need to provide any additional information. If they choose to, employers can provide information about their gender pay gap and any action they are taking to close it, and employers will have around a year to get ready with the first reporting planned for early 2024. Gender pay gap data will be published on WGEA's website in a searchable tool available to the public. This will add to the rich data already publicly available on WGEA's website. Reporting will commence in 2024, and it draws on all of that data, as I said before, from information already collected.

The legislation being introduced responds to the recommendations of the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. (Time expired)

Senator Walsh, first supplementary?

Thank you very much, Minister, for outlining those historic and very necessary reforms that I'm sure will be supported by all of us here in this place, in the chamber. Could you go a little further and outline for us why it is that gender equality must be considered a core economic imperative and why it is being considered a core imperative by our government?

Thank you, Senator Walsh, for the supplementary. On average, across all jurisdictions and occupations, Australian women earn $263.90 per week less than men. That is a lot of money to be short each week, and it entrenches women's disadvantage and economic inequality. It's not right that women are missing out just because of our gender. It's not just bad for women; it's bad for our economy as well. The gender pay gap has estimated to cost our economy $51.8 billion a year lost when it comes to women's pay.

The consensus on women's economic equality as a key economic priority was an important—and actually the first—outcome at last year's Jobs and Skills Summit. One of the immediate outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit was for the government to require businesses with 100 employees or more to publicly report their gender pay gap data to WGEA, which is implemented through today's legislation. I should say employers benefit too because gender equality makes good business sense. (Time expired)

Senator Walsh, a second supplementary question.

Thank you, President, and thank you, Minister. The historic reforms that you're talking about are really just the beginning for our government. Our commitment to gender equality as a core of our agenda is really just the beginning. Can you outline what other actions the Albanese government is taking to drive economic equality for women?

Thank you very much, Senator Walsh. For too long Australia has fallen behind the rest of the world when it comes to gender equality. I know many members in this place were at the UN Women Australia's breakfast this morning, where this subject was talked about, I think, by all of the speakers who addressed us, including the Prime Minister and our leader here, Senator Wong.

Under the previous government, Australia fell to 43rd of 145 countries on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index 2022, having ranked 15th in 2006. We ranked 50th for economic empowerment, and that fell as low as 271st in 2021. We want to address this and improve on these results considerably. The Albanese government is working hard to restore Australia as a global leader on gender equality. Our budget put gender equality front and centre, investing over $7 billion to drive gender equality and reintroducing gender-responsive budgeting. (Time expired)

President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given to all questions asked by coalition senators.

I'm going to do just two things in the brief opportunity I have this afternoon. In all seriousness, the first is to remind the government about their commitment and their policy that was aimed at improving, sustaining, refreshing and energising Australia's charity sector. The second thing I'm going to do—and I'm embarrassed to have to do it—is to highlight the very, very real concerns and the evidence that is now appearing which demonstrates that Australia's charity and not-for-profit sector, which has done good work that many Australians regularly rely upon, is feeling the strain. It's feeling the strain of a number of things. It is feeling the strain of the current cost-of-living pressures, which are made worse for it because many charities are still feeling the fatigue and the exhaustion of having responded to a series of natural disasters in our country. They stepped up in their local communities during the pandemic and now are facing very, very real, serious and immediate challenges.

I hope that after today's brief remarks this issue gets to the top of Senator Gallagher's priorities. I hope it gets to the top of the government's priorities, because you can't be interested in providing cost-of-living relief if you're not also interested in supporting Australia's charity and not-for-profit sector.

Labor committed, in its 'Building capacity, Building Community' policy, to do just three things, and we heard from Senator Gallagher this afternoon that not one has been delivered. The first was the appointment of an expert reference panel. How difficult can that be? How long should that take? The second was to create a blueprint mapping out how Australian charities could reach their potential—how urgent has that now become? Thirdly, they said they would provide coaching to the charity and community sector to fulfil its important and very, very urgent and needy role as frontline responders. And Labor said in the budget that it would do one more thing, and that was to initiate a Productivity Commission inquiry into philanthropic giving. How difficult can that be? And how urgent it has become. It's disappointing that, over the last few days and last week, much of the commentary in our newspapers has been about cost-of-living pressures and about the number of fixed mortgage rates shifting across to variable rates. There are 800,000 fixed rate loans shifting across to variable rates in this year alone, but we heard from the responsible minister that it's not yet reached the list of the government's priorities.

Let me just share what the sector is saying. In December last year, the sector released a report. It said in the key findings—you don't have to look very hard; they're on page 7—that three per cent of participants said their main service could always meet demand. That means 97 per cent of services do not feel like they can meet demand. Sixty-three per cent of survey participants—and this is surveys of charity providers—reported that cost-of-living pressures affected the people or communities their service supports. This was the most frequently reported challenge. Fifty-seven per cent of participants said access to affordable housing or homelessness affected their service users and communities. This was much higher amongst providers focused on domestic and family violence, which was 94 per cent, and financial, legal and emergency supports, which was 90 per cent.

In the last budget, just in October, the government applauded itself for delivering on its election commitments. Today is the third sitting day of the new parliamentary year, and they still have not been able to deliver on what has now become a most critical, a most urgent, election commitment and election promise. The matter is serious, and I hope we get some responses soon.

I'm really pleased to contribute to this debate in addressing an answer given by Minister Gallagher around what is the government's major priority. The No. 1 thing that we are focused on as a government is the economy and responding to the challenges that we are facing right now.

We are acutely aware, as a government, of the very difficult nature of interest rate rises and the impact that this is having on households and families and small businesses. It is our No. 1 focus, and that is why we are delivering cost-of-living relief for Australian families. I know that those opposite would like to ignore some of these steps—and even, at times, vote against them—but it is clear that we are delivering. We are responding to a very challenging economic situation in a manner that is affordable and responsible but delivers that relief for families.

We have delivered cheaper medicines for Australians. We are delivering cheaper child care. We passed the legislation last year, and it will come into force very soon for Australian families. To ignore this as an economic measure just shows that those opposite have not learnt how important child care and economic participation from women really is to our economy.

We're delivering energy relief. We came back to parliament, and it was a priority, an urgency for our government. That is why we ensured—extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures—that we passed that bill despite the fact that those opposite voted against it. They voted against cost-of-living relief for families and for small businesses for no other reason other than they are ideologically opposed to any—any!—action when it comes to delivering cost-of-living relief. That can be the only explanation as to why they voted against cost-of-living relief on energy bills for Australian families.

We're getting on with the job of delivering these important measures, and we're doing it in a responsible way that seeks to make sure that we don't create any further inflation. We are making sure that we are spending responsibly, and we are tackling our supply chain issues. But it's funny to me that those opposite seem to think, or want to believe, that they left this brand new house for the new government to walk into—with no curtains, no furnishing, nothing. It was supposedly untouched and nothing had happened. This is what we inherited: a house that had had an 18-year-old birthday party in it for two nights. Everything was broken, the budget was in a complete and utter mess and we inherited a trillion dollars in debt. You want to forget about this, but that is the situation that you've left us in.

You had funds for the National Party with colour coded spreadsheets and irresponsible spending, terminating measures of incredibly important programs that just have no funding in the future, and there was absolutely no energy plan. After 22 tries, they couldn't land a single energy policy, and yet they want to come here and vote against energy price relief. They left us with skills shortages across the country, which are impacting our economy. We know that, but we're getting on with the job of dealing with those skills shortages with fee-free TAFE. On top of this absolute mess that we inherited, we have a trillion in debt that those opposite want to completely ignore and pretend does not exist.

We are delivering responsible and affordable budget measures and we're doing it in a way that makes sure that every single Australian family knows that our No. 1 priority is dealing with the economic challenges that we're facing, responding to these cost-of-living pressures and doing it in a way that does not create worse inflation or contribute to the issues. That is what we are—

Senator Reynolds.

Listening to those opposite, you'd think that all is absolutely fabulous out and about across Australia. Let me tell you as a senator for Western Australia—come out to any supermarket or anywhere Australians are spending money. In Western Australia, retail sales were down 30 per cent last month because the cost of living is biting, and it is biting hard. I'll challenge any one of you over there to come with Senator O'Sullivan and me out into the suburbs of Perth and out into rural and regional Australia, and you just trot out that rubbish about how great life is under you. It demonstrably is complete and utter lies.

If you think that people aren't feeling the cost-of-living pressure through your inflationary measures, like increased interest rates, then come and speak to real Australians, because let me tell you what they're telling us. They are saying that they are struggling to pay for their groceries. They are having to make incredibly difficult choices each and every day about how they feed their families. They are struggling to pay their power bills, because you promised you would reduce them by $275, and instead they have gone up, and up and up. It's not only individuals and their families; it is businesses, large and small, who are struggling with all of these inflationary pressures that you've put on our economy.

They are struggling to pay for their mortgages. As we have heard, 800,000 Australians and many tens of thousands of Western Australians are about to come off fixed interest rate mortgages, and they will be struggling even further. You are doing nothing but putting further pressure on interest rates and inflation. Western Australians are not only struggling to build a house or to afford a mortgage; they are also struggling to pay their rent, with the increased unavailability of houses to rent. They are not taking holidays, and they are working significant overtime. In fact, 12 per cent of Western Australians who are renting are looking to downsize their rental property. Of course, they can't find any, because the McGowan government has been completely derelict in providing greater housing stock and rental stocks in Western Australia.

The Albanese Labor government is demonstrably putting pressure on the costs of living of all Western Australians. Please take up our offer; we will take you—won't we, Senator O'Sullivan?—to any shopping centre in Western Australia. You should talk to real Australians and tell them what tripe you've just put out here in this Senate. It is complete and utter rubbish. Of course, Western Australians, who deserve far better from this current government in terms of helping them with their costs of living, are also subject to the complete dereliction of the McGowan Labor government. So in Western Australia we have a double whammy. Again, if you're concerned about health care, come and talk to Western Australians about the tragedies that impact on every family now in Australia.

They're not only struggling with their health care and their cost of living; our hospitals in Western Australia, despite record funding from us when we were in government, are at breaking point. We now have thousands and thousands of sick and injured Western Australians who have to sit for hours and hours outside the emergency room not because the state government doesn't have enough money. It's because it cannot manage its doctors and nurses and make beds available. Western Australians deserve so much better.

For example, the WA state Labor government promised a lot on infrastructure—they've had record surpluses—and yet they are not spending the money on health care. They've spent six years delivering supposedly better rail, the METRONET, and guess what? After six years and about three times the budget blowout, there is not a single train on any of those tracks yet, and people in outer suburbs who are already feeling the cost-of-living pressure are still having to pay exorbitant amounts and spend time transporting themselves to their places of work.

Again, I have to note, in terms of Western Australia and Western Australians deserving better, that our premier there is so out of touch. He made comments today on Carnarvon, saying he went there recently. But he actually was there for a fly-in fly-out 18 months ago to do a publicity stunt, and he hasn't been up there since to have a look at the devastation of alcohol and many of the other social issues that are plaguing Carnarvon. Western Australians deserve better from both state— (Time expired)

Anyone listening to this at home would be wondering when the last chance was that those opposite had in government. It wasn't that long ago. They spent the better part of the last decade in government—a low-ambition government with short memories. None of this stuff started on 19 May in 2022. The issues they're referring to around cost of living started well before that. The inflationary pressures started well before that. Many of the challenges in our economy started well before that, and they started under their watch.

So they have short memories, for sure, and also not good listening skills, because I just sat here through Senator Green's contribution, where she very delicately acknowledged the great difficulties facing Australians at the moment when it comes to cost of living. These issues are biting. They're really stinging, I know they're stinging in South Australia. They're stinging in the costs of rents, which are soaring in many parts of Adelaide and around our state. Supply issues in the housing market are causing these challenges, something we're seeking to address through our housing policies in government and something which has been neglected for the better part of a decade. And, yes, interest rates are creating significant challenges for Australians with mortgages. These pressures are real, and they're hurting people in my state. That's why our government is acting.

But let's not pretend you can act in this way without some degree of delicacy. You need to be careful, you need to be responsible and you need to show restraint in the budget. That's exactly what our Treasurer and our government have done. We have been working to deliver cost-of-living relief for Australians in a way which won't add further pressure to inflation, through things like our policy to lower the cost of medicines, a significant reform which will make a real difference to many, many Australians and some of our most vulnerable Australians who are reliant on regular medicines. This will make a very significant difference.

For people of my generation, the costs of child care are absolutely enormous. They eat into a huge part of a family's budget each week. They are a necessary expense to participate in the economy and to maintain your connection with the workforce—and, of course, to give children access to that amazing and incredible thing that we call play based learning, which sets them up for a great start in life. But these costs are significant, which is why we've introduced a significant package to lower the cost of child care and increase access to early learning.

And, we have responsibly supported wage growth. We've supported an increase to the minimum wage, a significant measure which makes a big difference in the lives of Australians, our lowest paid Australians, with cost-of-living pressures. But we are doing these things responsibly. We are doing them in the context of restraint.

Alongside these measures, we are addressing challenges on the supply side—challenges like the skills gaps in our economy. These are skills challenges which sat ignored and untouched by the previous government for the better part of a decade. We are doing this through measures like our fee-free TAFE positions. We are investing in cleaner and cheaper energy, after almost a decade of failed energy policy after failed energy policy—that failure to give the market and businesses the investment guidelines they needed to stimulate that part of our economy and grow jobs. We've made those decisions. We've legislated those targets to provide that certainty and to provide that growth.

Of course, we didn't come to government to a perfect economy. We came to government and inherited a trillion dollars of their debt—a trillion dollars of debt with very little economic dividend to show for it. We came to government with a time of falling real wages. We came to government at a time of increasing energy prices and insecurity and instability in the energy market, because of their failure to legislate and because of their failure to choose a policy and stick to it. We came to government at a time of significant skills shortages. All of these are things that we are working on.

We understand that cost of living is biting at the moment. It's biting people in my state. It's biting people in Adelaide. That's why we are working to address it. I'm sure, and I have great confidence, that our May budget will take even further measures to help support Australians with these cost-of-living pressures. Let's lose the dodgy listening skills and stretch back a bit further in your memory, because we are doing— (Time expired)

The opposition is committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians, and we hope the Albanese government continues our generational reform of the aged-care system for the benefit of all residents.

The opposition called on the Labor government to prioritise keeping vulnerable older Australians safe, something they failed to do in 2022 and, unfortunately, it looks like they have failed again. The minister earlier today couldn't tell us how many Australians have died from COVID in residential aged care since the 2022 election—couldn't answer that question. This government has neglected older Australians through devastating COVID outbreaks at the end of last year. Shamefully, the minister characterised her response to this situation as a 'watching brief'. How long are you going to watch? Act! This last wave of the COVID-19 virus has seen more aged-care residents die of COVID in the first eight months of the Albanese government than in the whole 2½ years dealing with the pandemic. It flies in the face of transparency that, in the exact same week that marked this serious milestone, the data reporting changed. The minister said she would put the care back into aged care, but, instead, she has ripped out the measures put in place to protect older Australians through the pandemic and has now changed the reporting system, which raises further serious questions.

Sensible measures like supplying PPE and RATs to residential aged care are important, but the tragic statistics show that is not enough. The government also ended the most effective vaccine program, Operation COVID Shield, despite health advice that vaccination is the most effective defence against new waves of the pandemic. All Australians want and expect our older Australians to be well supported and cared for in our community, including in residential aged-care homes. That is why in government the coalition called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, to ensure our oldest and most vulnerable Australians receive care that supports and respects their dignity and recognises the important contribution they have made to society. The final report of the royal commission makes 148 recommendations. Following 23 public hearings over 99 days, 641 witnesses and over 10,000 public submissions, they are the product of wise and compassionate scrutiny of Australia's aged-care system.

In response to the royal commission, the coalition committed $19.1 billion to a five-year plan to improve aged care with new home-care packages, respite services, training places, retention bonuses and infrastructure upgrades. The opposition remains committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians and understands the important role that aged-care providers, care workers and nurses play in ensuring this support is provided in residential aged-care settings. I acknowledge the work that they have done and that they continue to do.

During the election campaign Labor said they would 'put the care back into aged care'. Instead they have delayed the delivery of the Fair Work Commission's 15 per cent pay rise for Australia's hardworking and dedicated aged-care staff. This is another shocking broken promise from the Labor government. After repeatedly committing to fully fund the outcome of the pay rise case, the Labor government have now announced that they will only deliver a 10 per cent rise next year for the sector, with the remaining five per cent delayed an entire year.

This government has neglected older Australians through devastating COVID outbreaks. At the end of last year, shamefully, the minister characterised her response, again, as a 'watching brief'. The minister did say she would put the 'care back into aged care'. We look forward to seeing evidence of that and the data that supports that.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Iraq War.

Next month marks 20 years since the Howard government's decision to participate in the catastrophic US-led invasion of Iraq, a war that killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and left millions more with a trauma that they still live with and that will last for generations. During the course of this question time period I put a simple question to the foreign minister and to the government. I asked whether it was the government's view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law and convention. The response was, 'We have no further comment.' It's 2023, as though to suggest to this chamber that the Iraq War and its implications are not something that the people of Iraq and that the people of Australia continue to live with to this day.

Five million orphans were created by the Iraq War. Hundreds of thousands lost their life. Today, the direct result of the war is still the third-largest cause of death and the largest contributor to child mortality. The infrastructure, the services, the health care and the education of that sovereign nation were devastated by a military campaign in which this Howard government, this Australian government, participated in willingly.

This month leading up to the anniversary of the invasion must be a period of reflection and of hard introspection. What happened? Who is responsible? What are the impacts that people are living with today? How do we ensure it never happens again? Who made the decision to go to war? Who gave the order? How did we end up there? How is it that, when 92 per cent of the Australian population opposed an illegal invasion, their government was able to go ahead and do it anyway? And how is it now that an Australian Labor Party government comes before this chamber in the context of that reality with no comment?

I yield my time.

It is now 20 years since Iraq was invaded illegally—an invasion predicated on lies sold to the world by the Western governments that together went to war in Iraq. That included Australia, and no-one has been held to account.

The initial 'shock and awe' military campaign killed more than 7,000 Iraqi civilians in just two months. We can just imagine the fear of communities on the ground, facing that swift and ferocious invasion. The war and its aftermath have since claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and Iraqis are still waiting for justice and accountability for the full truth of what happened. Indeed, the entire region is struggling with the instability of violence caused by the war. Australian war veterans who were sent to fight a brutal, bloody and illegal war based on a lie are still waiting for answers, and the current Labor government is refusing to give those answers.

Yesterday, Labor teamed up with the Liberals to stop the Greens' push for accountability through the release of documents surrounding the decision to go to war. This is exceptionally frustrating, because two decades ago the then Labor opposition joined with the Greens, and millions of Australians, in opposing that war. The then United Nations General Secretary Kofi Anan said in September 2004 that 'From our point of view and the UN charter's point of view, the war is illegal.' Today, the current Labor foreign minister still won't state a position on whether or not the war was illegal. Why not? Why do we still not know who made the decision and on what allegedly legal basis to send Australia into that brutal, unjust and illegal war? Worse still, the Wikileaks founder and Australian citizen, Julian Assange, who has been a vital truth-telling force about the illegal invasion of Iraq, is still sitting in a UK maximum security prison for the crime of telling the truth.

It's about time the Australian people learned the truth. And it's well past time the Iraqi people learned the truth about this illegal war. We say again: with the 20th anniversary coming up, this is the chance for Labor to remember where it stood two decades ago and to tell the truth about this illegal war.

Question agreed to.

I refer to general business notice of motion No. 50 from Senator McKenzie, agreed to by the Senate on 25 October 2022, for an order for the production of documents.

The senator's request related to correspondence between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The government claims public interest immunity over documents relating to the senator's request on the ground that disclosure of such documents would cause prejudice to the relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Specifically, disclosure would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with the state government on this and future infrastructure funding arrangements.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Or lack thereof.

Yes! I'll take that interjection from my good colleague from South Australia, Senator Ruston. The Senate performs an incredible accountability mechanism on executive government. It doesn't matter whether you're in the opposition, in the government itself or on the crossbench: the processes, procedures and conduct of this chamber are critical for Australians to have confidence in the operation of the executive part of government. On 25 October, our Senate voted and required the minister to table the documents regarding a project in the Hahndorf township. That was 3½ months ago. The minister responsible, Minister King, claimed public interest immunity on the basis that releasing the documents would damage relationships between the Commonwealth and the states.

Again, on 23 November, the Senate rejected that public interest immunity. It wasn't the opposition; it was the Senate chamber rejecting that. On 28 November, Minister King once again claimed public interest immunity on the same grounds. This response by the minister representing Minister King is an insult to the Senate.

I would also like to say thank you to those senators who joined with the opposition in the interests of accountability and transparency. We don't always agree on public policy, but we do agree on public accountability. I can understand a minister from the other place, such as Minister King, may not fully appreciate the important role of the Senate, but the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt, does, or should, understand the importance of the Senate. The response he has given on behalf of Catherine King here today is an insult to the Senate and to our form of government.

It's absolutely embarrassing that Minister Watt had to come in and claim public interest immunity because somehow the relationship between the Albanese Labor government and the Malinauskas Labor government would be damaged if Minister King had to comply with the order of the Senate about the delays to a critical road project in South Australia. What is there to hide? Everyone knows the Hahndorf project has been delayed and that the funding has been cut by $45.5 million over the forward estimates. That was all public in the October budget. It's been asked about in Senate estimates. It's a public fact. The release of the documents between the Commonwealth and state government relating to this project is not going to change those known facts, but it may provide further clarity to the community that's been impacted by the funding delays and answer questions around what challenges exist in delivering the project.

Minister Watt should be ashamed to stand in this place and admit that he can't convince Minister King to make these documents available to the Senate and to actually respect the will of the Senate—not the opposition, not the shadow minister, but the Senate in and of itself. He should exercise that seniority by expressing in no uncertain terms to the minister how important it is to our democracy more broadly that the minister for infrastructure comply with these orders of the Senate. The Senate has not made this decision once or twice; this is now three times. It is just blatant disregard.

This is how they're going about their promise of transparency and accountability. Every single place you turn, these guys do not want to be upfront and accountable to the Australian public. They attempted to cut a week of estimates in this chamber, and next week we will be able to exercise oversight on behalf of Australian taxpayers. They also withheld the release of budget tables for infrastructure projects. They refused to take ownership of funding cuts and delays on road projects, road safety funding and regional economic development programs, and they have failed to deliver answers to Senate estimates questions on notice in a timely manner.

In my own area of responsibility, there are still 34 questions tabled in the October-November estimates which have not been answered. That was 3½ months ago. I've been there. I know where the answers to the questions are because the Australian Public Service in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development will have drafted the answers in a timely manner and will have shot them up to the minister's office for them to okay them. Do you know where those 34 answers will be? Sitting on the minister's desk, with her refusing to release them publicly because she knows the truth will damage the reputation of the Albanese government.

The former coalition government committed to deliver the Hahndorf township improvement and access upgrade project in partnership with the South Australian government. It's a $250 million project of which the Commonwealth would contribute 80 per cent of the funding. That's $200 million. It is critical to safety and the efficient movement of product.

I visited the township of Hahndorf recently, with my assistant shadow minister, Tony Pasin, and saw for myself one of the most iconic villages in South Australia, from a tourism perspective, with B-doubles driving through the main street, turning dangerously in corners where families were crossing the street. International visitors and fabulous products from Riverland, from right around South Australia's regions and even from, in my home state, the Mallee come through there. This is a much-needed project because someone is going to get hurt if it is not built.

There's one long road through that busy Hahndorf village, with a single lane each way, and the car parks are also always utilised. This project is long overdue, and it was meant to be completed in 2025-26. So, fair enough, Labor governments have decided they'll kick this one into the long grass, but public interest immunity is an important aspect of our democracy. I want to quote to the chamber what Senator Gallagher said on 2 December 2021 about the process that governments should adopt in complying with Senate determinations around public interest immunity. Senator Gallagher said:

The Senate passes it, and then requires the documents to be provided or the minister to come and make a statement. The documents are not provided. And then the minister comes and makes a statement, which is basically to say what they said originally to the question on notice!

She then said:

The thing is: when you are in opposition and you are trying to do this, we will remind you of this …

'We'll remind you of the proper process that should be done by ministers in complying with orders of the Senate.' Well, you've had multiple opportunities on this particular topic, and you have failed at every juncture.

I will quote Senator Gallagher again, from 17 March 2021, that this is a 'lazy approach' by the Labor Party and a 'misuse of the public interest immunity claims process'. I agree, Senator Gallagher. I agree with Minister Watt's absolutely pathetic attempt here today to provide transparency around this project.

It's a joke to him.

It's an absolute joke. I would call on Senator Wong, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to have a bit of a hard chat with ministers in the other place about respecting the chamber here in the Senate and the determinations that it's made in the interests of public transparency and accountability.

I associate myself with the remarks that have already been put on the record by Senator McKenzie in relation to this disgraceful exhibition of a lack of accountability by those opposite.

The questions that this chamber should be asking the minister, in coming in here and claiming a public interest immunity on the basis—if you will believe it—that it may damage the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia, are: what are you hiding, Minister? What is your government hiding? What is the South Australian government hiding? Does the South Australian government know that you're actually impugning them, in your decision not to provide this information, suggesting that they too are somehow involved in a cover-up about a project that is being funded entirely by taxpayers' money from both my home state of South Australia and federal taxpayers? It's $250 million. It's a quarter of a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money and apparently nobody has the right to see any information about the arrangements that are being put in place in relation to this particular project. One would have to assume that there must be something to be hidden here, because you would think that a government that was prepared to commit this kind of money to a project would be proud to tell the people of Australia, proud to tell the people of South Australia, what they were investing $250 million in.

The reality of the decision today by the minister to come in here and claim a public interest immunity on this project is that it insults not only this Senate but every single member of this Senate and the fact that this Senate has actually voted for this information to be released. It insults the parliamentary process that we all come in here for and hold so very dearly. Those opposite are all well and good to get up there and talk about parliamentary process when it suits them, but right now, when it doesn't suit them, all of a sudden parliamentary process apparently doesn't matter anymore. So you also insult parliamentary process. Do you know who the people are that you're insulting the most by doing this? You're insulting the people of Hahndorf. The people of Hahndorf have long waited to have a remedy applied to their town. It has caused them massive inconvenience and exposed them to potential accidents and fatalities.

As Senator McKenzie said, I come from South Australia, and I was only in Hahndorf last week with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley. We sat in the main street of Hahndorf for a few hours, talking to the locals, and watched what went up and down that street. There were B-double logging trucks backward and forward while tourists were there trying to enjoy the amazing ambience of that community. I think the people who should be most insulted by the response from the minister today are actually the people of Hahndorf.

You have to then have a look underneath all this. Why would the government be seeking not to provide information about this project? We respect the public interest immunity system. There are times when there are reasons why information shouldn't be made public, and we absolutely respect that. But the minister has failed to even come into this place and give us any explanation as to what kind of information is contained in the correspondence that exists between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia that would actually be considered by their legal team to jeopardise the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia. If there is, I think the minister can come in here, present that and prove that in a reasonable explanation. I'm sure those on this side and others in the chamber would accept that. But to come in here and just say, 'We are not going to tell you anything about the expenditure of $250 million, $200 million of which was promised through the process of this particular parliament,' is really just saying there is no transparency. This is a government that apparently was elected on transparency and accountability, but there is no transparency and no accountability. They just don't care.

But the thing that is most concerning to me as a South Australian and as somebody who takes a great interest in the region of the Adelaide Hills, particularly in this instance, is the promises that were made no the people of Hahndorf about dealing with an issue that would improve accessibility and connectivity of the roads in that area—and we know that they are significantly lacking—and also to improve road safety for everybody who is impacted by the proposal.

The proposal was to take the traffic off a particular road, which is the main street through Hahndorf, Mount Barker Road, and redirect it in such a way that heavy vehicles would bypass the town. That is what the project restriction was, and everybody in the Adelaide Hills breathed a collective sigh of relief when the project was announced. However, on 27 Septembers last year, the South Australian transport minister, Tom Koutsantonis, completely blindsided the town of Hahndorf by coming out and saying that the intention was to scrap the much-awaited bypass and interchange at Hahndorf, leaving a massive hole in the benefits that were proposed to be delivered by this project.

Hahndorf is absolutely united, almost to a person, in the desire to have the heavy traffic removed from that road. Anybody who has done anything in infrastructure would understand that it is very, very rare that a town would seek to have traffic bypassed from its main street, because in many instances it will have a commercial impact on that town. The people of Hahndorf see that this will have a positive benefit to them. They believe that the heavy vehicles going up and down their main street is actually a deterrent to the main, core business of that town, which is tourism. However, in his decision to scrap the long-awaited bypass for Hahndorf, the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Koutsantonis, said that it was after public consultation with the people of Hahndorf that they had made the decision to scrap the bypass, because the people of Hahndorf didn't want it. I wonder whether Mr Koutsantonis bothered to speak to the Hahndorf Business and Tourism Association, who speak on behalf of the businesses and the tourism operators that exist in that main street. To quote them following the announcement by the minister, the proposal that's put forward by the government, who claim that it's somehow going to solve the problem, will not: 'The upgrade that has been proposed will not solve traffic issues on Hahndorf's main street.'

In the absence of understanding why the minister is choosing not to provide the information as to what is going on here, and given the fact that the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has made the decision that they are not going to continue with the project as originally announced and celebrated by the community, one could only imagine this is a protection racket that is being run here, because what is now being proposed is going to cost less than the $250 million that was previously allocated. That is a quote that's come from the minister in South Australia.

They are scrapping the most substantial component of the development, according to the people of Hahndorf. They're doing it on the premise that the people of Hahndorf don't want it, and yet the people of Hahndorf are on the public record as saying that they do want it. And then today we see the minister walk in here, hand on heart, and tell us that the reason they're not providing this information is that it would damage the relationship between the Commonwealth and the South Australian government. I would contest that the reason this information is not being released today is that it will damage the relationship between the South Australian government and the people of Hahndorf, and it will damage the relationship between the Commonwealth government and the people of Hahndorf.

Those of us who are somewhat more cynical would suggest that the member for Mayo, Rebekah Sharkie, who has been a very strong advocate for her community of the Adelaide Hills, is no longer of any value to those opposite, 'So no longer are we going to provide any support to the community of the Adelaide Hills; what we're going to do instead is run a protection racket for the South Australian government.'

We have no transparency about where this money is going to go. Is it just disappearing back into general revenue? We have no transparency about what the South Australian government is required to do in the expenditure of taxpayer funds that have been allocated to it by this particular parliament. Instead, today we see the minister come in here and basically ignore us. It may only be a small thing, but, after the minister dropped his PII claim in this chamber 15 or 20 minutes ago, he didn't wait for Senator McKenzie—the first person to respond to his requirement to be in the chamber—to say one word before he upped sticks and walked out the door. He has not listened to one word we've had to say. This is so disrespectful.

Senator Liddle, on the same matter?

Of course it's on the public interest immunity claim on the basis of the relationship between the South Australian government and the Australian government. What about the relationship with the people of South Australia? What about the residents of Hahndorf? What about the motorists that use Hahndorf? What about the visitors to Hahndorf? Of course I want to speak on this matter.

Every day, the more than 3,000 residents of the Adelaide Hills town of Hahndorf are grappling with 11,000 vehicles that use their main street. There are almost 500 heavy vehicles among the congested traffic, frequently grinding the street to a crawl. We're talking logging trucks and livestock trucks. We're not talking about the little ones. We're talking about semitrailers in a congested main street full of pedestrians and tourists. I was there about two weeks ago with Senator Ruston, and I was stunned, watching the trees in the tree lined street being smashed by these trucks driving past, trying to manoeuvre their way amongst the traffic, the pedestrians and the public transport—the buses—parked on the sides of the road. I was sitting at a cafe on the side of the road and I was horrified, waiting to hear a bang. The poor residents, visitors and truck drivers must feel that every time they turn into that stretch of road.

Around 36,700 vehicles use the Mount Barker interchange on the South Eastern Freeway each day. That's not a small number. The statistics clearly point to ever-increasing traffic congestion and safety concerns, and show in fact that there have been about 45 accidents in the past five years.

What also should not be missed is how vital this town of Hahdorf is to the South Australian economy, with an estimated one million visitors each year. This economic tourism injection adds to the congestion and safety concerns, yet the solution has been scrapped. The $250 million Hahndorf Township Improvements and Access Upgrade Project announced by the Morrison government and the South Australian government in 2020—on an 80-20 funding basis—is now not going ahead. We have no real explanation for that.

In a hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 28 October last year I asked what was happening with the project. I was told, 'The project will be proceeding as always planned'—yes, 'as always planned'—and that the federal government was awaiting a final report from the South Australian government. Yet on 27 September last year the South Australia government announced that they had scrapped the project. Well, that does not add up; nor does the response we were given just a few minutes ago. Obviously, the federal department's answer was wrong. It had already been axed. Labor's left and right hands don't know what's going on.

The Hahndorf community action group, which is large and very active, is stunned. It is worth noting that Hahndorf is not within a federal or state Labor electorate. Could it be that Labor, both federal and state, don't have the needs of Adelaide Hills residents as a priority? There doesn't seem to be any transparent or valid reason for the project to be axed, certainly not a transparent or valid reason that any of those residents, drivers, locals or tourists would accept as reasonable. A petition to reinstate the bypass project has more than 1,700 signatures, and it's growing.

We know this is bad news for Hahndorf and for all Adelaide Hills residents, as the interchange upgrade would have reduced congestion, improved safety for road users and improved connectivity between the freeway and Mount Barker and other Adelaide Hills towns. This would have helped thousands of motorists who travel to and from the CBD every day. The congestion is still there and the road accidents will continue.

Currently, even the website of the SA Department for Infrastructure and Transport clearly admits the problem. It says that without new infrastructure—it's still up there on its website—and upgrades in and around Hahndorf it's likely traffic and freight will continue to increase and traffic collisions are likely to increase. It says:

When you go up to the end of Hahndorf, even on a weekday, it sometimes takes maybe 15 or 20 minutes. You're down to about five to 10 kilometres an hour getting through that stretch.

Do you know what? The other day I sat in my car on South Road, which is a major arterial road in South Australia. The project to help ease the congestion there, in the seat of Boothby, has been delayed again. The price of that build has gone up. It's a similar story. We don't care that people sit in traffic ambling along at 10 kays an hour for kilometres. Who cares about people getting to work? Who cares about people who are running a business getting from one point to another within a reasonable time frame? That's money lost to them. That's what happens when you don't focus on infrastructure improvements.

Hahndorf residents will now get an upgrade of the main street. The congestion will remain, the risks will remain, and I say that's simply not good enough, and nor was the explanation for not providing the answers.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

Pursuant to notice given on 7 February 2023 on behalf of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for today standing in my name for the next day of sitting.

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

I, and also on behalf of Senator Brockman, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

The current extent of bank closures in regional Australia, with reference to:

(a) the branch closure process, including the reasons given for closures;

(b) the economic and welfare impacts of branch closures on customers and regional communities;

(c) the effect of bank closures or the removal of face-to-face cash services on access to cash;

(d) the effectiveness of government banking statistics capturing and reporting regional service levels, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's authorised deposit-taking institutions points of presence data;

(e) consideration of solutions; and

(f) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2023:

(a) the National Cultural Policy released on 30 January 2023; and

(b) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I present the explanatory memorandum and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (the Act) was first passed over 10 years ago, and since that time, findings from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's (WGEA) dataset tell us that workplaces have a key role in making a difference in the lives of women and men.

This Bill cements that role.

The Bill charges employers with greater accountability towards gender equality in their workforces and helps drive the actions required in the workplace to bring about higher levels of gender equality in Australia.

As Australians, we pride ourselves on being a fair and equal society. However, for many in the workplace, that is not their experience.

Improving workplace gender equality is critical. Australian women deserve fair and safe working conditions. They deserve equal opportunity and equal remuneration.

In 2022, Australia's national gender pay gap was 14.1 per cent.[1] In practical terms, as of May 2022, the average weekly full time earnings of a woman in Australia, across all industries and occupations, was lower than the equivalent for men by $263.90 per week.

Women have on average 23.4 per cent less super when they come to retirement age than men.[2]

They are overrepresented in industries with lower wages and underrepresented in positions of leadership. Though women make up half of Australia's work force, they represent less than a quarter of all Chief Executive Officers.[3] About one fifth of all boards and governing bodies have no female directors.[4] Women hold just 18 per cent of Chair positions and 34 per cent of Board Member positions.[5]

Of course, gender discrimination in the workplace doesn't just impact women.

It is a constraint upon the whole of the Australian economy. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion a year.[6]

In 2021, a Review of the Act made ten recommendations that would help Australia accelerate progress towards workplace gender equality as well as making reporting easier for employers.

The Review identified where further action was needed to strengthen Act and enhance WGEA's ability to improve the quality of data and the level of support provided to employers.

The Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, together with the remade Instruments under the Act, fulfils almost all of the recommendations of the Review requiring legislative amendment.

It also fulfils a key election commitment of this Government: to close the gender pay gap at work, including by boosting pay gap transparency and encouraging action to close gender pay gaps within organisations

This Bill will be a key driver for employer action, transparency and accountability and will help speed up progress towards gender equality in the workplace.

It will do this by, for the first time, allowing WGEA to report gender pay gaps at employer level, not just industry level.

The current approach of publishing aggregate industry gender pay gaps is not creating the transparency, accountability and insights we need in order to close the gender pay gap fast enough.

The United Kingdom has reported employer level gender pay gaps since 2017. There is clear evidence from the UK's experience that publishing employer gender pay gaps led to companies prioritising gender equality and a lowering of the gender pay gap.

Research indicates the value of that publishing employer gender pay gaps in encouraging employers to address adverse gender dynamics in the workplace, and nudging individuals—both employers and employees—towards real world action that will make change in their workplace.[7]

These new measures mean that WGEA will publish the first set of private sector employ gender pay gaps in early 2024, using data from this reporting period, which ends on 31 March 2023. This gives employers time to prepare and WGEA will work with employers to help ensure they are ready.

Employers won't be required to collect any new data for public reporting as it will draw on data they already provide to WGEA. However, if they choose to, employers will be able to provide a statement to help explain any context related to their gender pay gap and actions they are taking to address it. This will sit alongside their gender pay gap information which will be published on WGEA's website.

The Bill further improves public transparency and accountability by requiring relevant employers to provide certain reports—the Executive Summary report and Industry Benchmark report—to their governing body.

The measures in this Bill will also strengthen WGEA's ability to support employers, as they progress gender equality in their organisations.

In parallel to this Bill, the remade instruments will streamline aspects of existing reporting that employers have reported to be 'pain points', reducing regulatory burdens and freeing businesses up to focus their efforts on gender equality action.

The Bill will align the Act with the Workplace Gender Equality (Matters in relation to Gender Equality Indicators) Instrument 2013 (No. 1) by including 'sexual harassment', 'harassment on the ground of sex', or 'discrimination' as gender equality indicators in the Act.

This does not change reporting obligations, as relevant employers already report to WGEA on sex-based harassment and discrimination.

Rather, this change recognises the importance of these core gender equality indicators and updates the Act to bring it in line with its Instrument and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, as well as other recent legislative changes, including the Respect@Work reforms.

The Bill reflects the increased ambitions of all these measures to strengthen gender equality, and improve outcomes for both women and men in the workplace, by amending the Act to rename current 'minimum standards' as 'gender equality standards'.

This Bill is the first step—there is more we want to do, not just broadly on workplace gender equality, but specifically with regard to how WGEA can help us understand and close the gender pay gap.

For example, Recommendation 3 of the Review calls for the addition of a new gender equality standard requiring employers with 500 or more employees to commit to and achieve specific targets, and report their progress against these targets to WGEA.

This Government is absolutely committed to this reform and to getting it right. The development of these gender equality targets requires close consultation with businesses and other stakeholders, to make sure that they are genuine, measurable, achievable and meaningful metrics which are shown to help progress gender equality.

I have asked WGEA to undertake the necessary consultation to progress this important work ahead of further legislative amendments to make these targets a reality.

In addition, since 2021 WGEA has been collecting on a voluntary basis workplace data that captures employees who identify as non-binary. One of the recommendations of the Review was that the Act should be amended to enable the mandatory collection of this data.

This is a change we want to make—it will bring this important piece of legislation in line with other Commonwealth standards, such as those used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, when collecting data on gender. It will also enable a more fulsome picture of our workplaces—and one which will more accurately reflect Australian society.

But this change needs to be done carefully, in close consultation with businesses and employees, and with representative and advocacy groups and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

We want to do this in a way that ensures people who identify as non-binary feel safe at work to disclose this information, with the confidence that their privacy will be preserved, that their personal information will be protected and that they will not experience adverse consequences in their workplace.

I have asked WGEA to prioritise work in partnership with specialist organisations, the community sector, unions, and industry groups to develop an approach to collecting this data that is safe and respectful to people who identify as non-binary. I have also asked WGEA to develop best practice guidance materials and provide education and support for businesses so they are ready to collect this data when the time comes.

WGEA will progress this work together with the research it is conducting as part of Recommendation 6 of the Review, which recommended WGEA should undertake research and consultation on the collection of additional diversity data such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, cultural and linguistic diversity, and disability.

Employees do not have to wait—they can voluntarily provide additional diversity data and can start moving towards greater diversity data collection, with support from WGEA.

Employers can seize the momentum of these reforms and to play their part in helping to close the gender pay gap.

There are further reforms to come and the Office for Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will continue to work to identify the best pathway for us to legislate these important changes. WGEA will work with employers to ensure they are supported and able to step up to the plate.

Every measure in this Bill has been designed in close consultation with stakeholders across Australia, including: the business and not-for-profit sectors, employee organisations, higher education providers, the women's sector, users of the WGEA data, Australian government and state and territory government and of course WGEA itself.

At every stage in the implementation of the Review, Government has shown a genuine willingness to consult—we have been transparent with stakeholders on our policy positions and reasoning, and indeed, many of the amendments in this Bill have been fine-tuned as a direct result of invaluable stakeholder feedback.

The Government has also committed to reviewing these legislative amendments five years after they are passed—this will ensure we are able to critically consider and robustly interrogate how effective these measures have been in achieving their objective of accelerating progress towards gender equality in Australian workplaces.

The Bill represents a critical piece in the Government's ongoing commitment and action towards gender equality.

Together with our new National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, and working in concert with the Respect@Work; Secure Jobs, Better Pay; and Improvements for Families and Gender Equality legislation passed by this Government, the Bill will help us to achieve our goal of being one of the best countries in the world for equality between women and men.

[1] The national gender pay gap is calculated by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, using the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

[2] WGEA (2022) Gender Workplace Statistics at a Glance   .https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-08-18%20Stats%20at%20a%20glance%20FINAL%20V1.2.pdf

[3, 4, 5] WGEA (2022) WGEA Gender Equality Scorecard 2022   .https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/WGEA-Gender-Equality-Scorecard-2022.pdf

[6] KPMG 'She's Price(d)less: The Economics of the Gender Pay Gap' (2022) https://www.dca.org.au/research/project/shes-pricedless-2022-update-report

[7] James Purtill 'Gender Pay Gap Bot calls out brands tweeting about International Women's Day while paying women less than men (ABC, 2022) https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-03-11/gender-pay-gap-bot-international-womens-day-twitter/100898172; Tomasz Oblo 'Study finds "trade-off" between pay transparency and performance' (Personnel Today, 2022) https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/study-finds-trade-off-between-pay-transparency-and-performance; Morten Bennedsen et al 'Do Firms Respond to Gender Pay Gap Transparency?' (Working Paper No. 25435 2022)

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That—

(a) at 5 pm on Wednesday, 8 February 2023, the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the following instruments be called on together:

(i) Schedules 3 and 4 to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022,

(ii) Australian Capital Territory National Land (Lakes) Ordinance 2022,

(iii) Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Franchising) Amendment (Franchise Disclosure Register) Regulations 2022,

(iv) Competition and Consumer Amendment (Consumer Data Right)

Regulations 2021, and

(v) Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage Projects) Rule 2021, Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Carbon Capture and Storage) Methodology Determination 2021, and Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Hubs and Technologies Program) Instrument 2021;

(b) the motions be considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put; and

(c) senators may speak for not more than 5 minutes each.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum related to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

The speech read as fo llows—

Young people are engaged in politics. They speak in public, they attend rallies, they are union members, political party members, and they lobby their politicians. Allowing young people to vote would be a greatly motivating and empowering experience; it's time to lower the voting age to 16.

In 2019, the Australian Human Rights Commission found that people under the age of 18 feel they have no voice in society. The report found that young people were frustrated about their lack of ability to participate in politics and about social structures that diminish their agency.

As the youngest person ever elected to the Australian Senate, I have had the opportunity to work alongside so many young people. They've shared with me their experiences, I've heard their demands of successive governments, and I've sat in this chamber and seen that for far too long, Australian politics has failed to represent and take action on the issues they care about.

Young people have tirelessly asked the Australian Government to take actions that will improve their life; young people have led rallies to demand stronger climate action, they've asked time and time again for more mental health services to be available, for higher education to be made free again, and for politicians to change laws to so they will have confidence that they will have a secure roof over their head. They are still waiting for action.

What has been clear is that politicians are able to drag their feet because they know that young people's ability to express their dismay has little consequence to their power while they are denied their right to vote. The disenfranchisement of young people is considered convenient by too many, and it has to change.

Young people have been empowered to vote in places like Austria, Brazil and Scotland. Research has demonstrated that granting young people the right to vote has had a positive impact on the confidence of young people to feel that they can affect change.

In Scotland, during the independence referendum in 2014, a decision was made to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to participate for the first time. Almost 80 per cent of that age group turned out to vote. In 2022, the Supreme Court in New Zealand ruled that the voting age of 18 is discriminatory to young people.

When I was first elected to the Senate, I was the youngest person ever elected, and the only person under the age of 30. Now there are more young people, but nowhere near enough. It's time we recognised the enormous contribution that young people give to our society—included them in our decision-making and encourage more young people to get involved in the parliamentary decisions and processes that impact them.

We can do that by lowering the voting age to 16 in Australia. This bill would allow us to change the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to lower the minimum age of a voter in Australian federal elections and referenda from 18 to 16 years of age while maintaining the compulsory voting requirement for 16- and 17-year-olds. The bill also adds being 16 or 17 years of age as a valid reason for failing to vote, which allows the Deputy Returning Officer to waive their fine for not voting.

Enabling 16- and 17-year-olds to vote will facilitate greater civics education and allow teachers to bring process—not party politics—into the classroom in a tangible way. It will foster a culture of civic participation amongst young people, leaving them in good stead for the rest of their lives and their active involvement in our democracy.

Finally, this bill seeks to update our electoral practices to ensure that if you're not yet on the roll but have the identification to prove you're entitled to cast a vote, you can still have your say. It's 2023, and we should have enough flexibility in our system to properly facilitate our compulsory voting process and allow people to enrol at a polling place, on the day of voting.

It's time to lower the voting age to 16 in Australia and show young people that we hear them, we care about their opinions, and we are working for their future.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on 13 February 2023, all independent observer reports relating to voyages of livestock export ships in 2022 which were not published on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's website as of 6 February 2023.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 March 2023:

(a) a list of formal meetings attended personally by the Minister for the Environment and Water since 29 October 2022 inclusive, in relation to the Government's Samuel Review response and the proposed establishment of an Environment Protection Authority; and

(b) a list of formal meetings attended by staff of the Minister for the Environment and Water since 29 October 2022 inclusive, in relation to the Government's Samuel Review response and the proposed establishment of an Environment Protection Authority.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 March 2023:

(a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) to the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive, in relation to:

(i) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to the Environmental Defenders Office, and

(ii) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to Environmental Justice Australia;

(b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between DCCEEW and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive, in relation to:

(i) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to the Environmental Defenders Office; and

(ii) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to Environmental Justice Australia.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 March 2023:

(a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) to the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive in relation to the potential World Heritage listing of areas of the Burrup Peninsula; and

(b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between DCCEEW and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive in relation to the potential World Heritage listing of areas of the Burrup Peninsula.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 2 pm on 22 February 2023, the following:

(a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;

(b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Treasurer regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;

(c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Assistant Treasurer regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;

(d) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Minister for Health and Aged Care regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;

(e) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/ or their office with the Minister for Trade and Tourism regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;

(f) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Prime Minister regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia;

(g) any briefing notes, file notes and emails regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia for meetings with the industry; and

(h) any correspondence to and from industry organisations regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to protect not just everyday Australians and businesses who are simply going about their day, but also major economic and national interests.

In recent times Australian capital cities have seen disruptive and illegal activities in, explicitly designed to cause maximum chaos, disruption an ultimately economic harm, under the guise of being a "protest".

The right to protest is one of the most fundamental rights of people living in a healthy liberal democracy, as it is a vital means by which the state can be held accountable, and the concerns of citizens expressed.

However, recent years have seen an increase in activities which, though described by organisers and participants as protests, are no more than acts of trespass, vandalism, and major economic disruption for the sake of highlighting a cause. These are not responsible or respectful acts but actions intended to cause as much disruption as possible and interfere with others' rights to property and safety—actions such as gluing oneself to a road and deliberately disrupting the flow of traffic.

The sight of entire major thoroughfares being completely closed and chaos within the central business districts of major cities has become all too common. While this behaviour is accepted and even encouraged by activist mainstream media outlets, the everyday Australian has had enough.

These acts are becoming more and more brazen, disruptive, and dangerous. It is only a matter of time until someone is seriously injured or even killed as a result of this sort of activity getting completely out of hand. Everyday Australians and businesses deserve and require protection from this infantile disruption to their lives, and our economic prosperity and in turn the national interest also requires protection.

The organising of the sort of activity targeted by this Bill has the potential to cause significant economic loss and disruption to individuals and business, including:

While those carrying out this activity on our streets often receive little to no punishment, the real threat comes from the organisers who plot these events online, and who often hold views completely at odds with Australian values and mean to do us great harm in the name of their twisted ideologies.

For example, anti-capitalist protestors have sought to impede economic activity and damage businesses as much as possible to make a political statement, going well beyond the legitimate mechanism of political protests, and the organisers of such disruptions, who actively promote these activities, rarely face any meaningful consequences.

Each new disruptive event that is organised and carried out by their proxies on the street emboldens these extremists to organise further crimes and disruptions without fear of criminal penalty for their role.

This Bill would amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to use a carriage service to transmit materials which incite another person to commit trespass, theft, or unlawful disruption of road users in major business areas.

The Bill introduced three new offences in the Criminal Code. First, using a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish, or otherwise distribute material with the intent to incite another person to trespass on land in a major business area attracts up to 12 months imprisonment.

Second, using a carriage service to incite another person to unlawfully damage or destroy property, or commit theft of property, in a major business attracts up to five years imprisonment, to reflect the more serious nature of the offence.

Third, using a carriage service to incite another person to unlawfully obstruct the path of a road user, as defined in the Australian Road Rules, could face up to 12 months imprisonment.

As was seen with the introduction of the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Act 2019 with respect to incitement of trespass on agricultural land, this Bill will prevent the trespass, property damage or theft, or disruption of traffic in major business areas being planned and organised using the internet.

There are legal means of organising and undertaking protests, the right to which underpins our society and political system, which is why the necessary protections for journalists and whistleblowers are provided for in this Bill.

These offences would not apply to a person who makes a public interest disclosure in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, whistleblower protections under the Corporations Act 2001, or in accordance with other Commonwealth, State, or Territory whistleblower or lawful disclosure regimes.

The offences created by this Bill would not apply to material relating to a news report or current affairs report which is in the public interest and is made by a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist, ensuring that these amendments do not become a weapon to be arbitrarily used against those who expose corruption and other inconvenient truths.

In line with the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Act 2019 the burden of proof rests with the prosecution in establishing that material did not relate to a news or current affairs report, was not in the public interest, and was not made by a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist.

The exceptions and protections built into this Bill reflects the balance between the rights of citizens to protest and other rights intrinsic to Australian democracy such as property rights, the right to individual and public safety, and fair and equal access to public measures, ensuring that protests are undertaken via legitimate legal mechanisms.

This Bill will punish those who incite others to commit disruptive crimes and will ensure everyday Australians and businesses are protected from extremist forms of chaos and disruption.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Antic and Rennick, move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

The speech read as follows—

I'd like to start my comments by reminding you that the overarching object of the Fair Work Act, which was introduced by the Labor Government in 2009, is "to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians" by, among other things, "providing workplace relations laws that are fair to working Australians, are flexible for businesses, promote productivity and economic growth for Australia's future economic prosperity and take into account Australia's international labour obligations."

I acknowledge the contribution on this subject by Senator Hanson through her COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and Senator Roberts' proposed amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 to make it illegal for an employer to sack or to not employ someone based on their COVID vaccine status.

I feel so strongly about workers' rights that I crossed the floor. I believe every person has a fundamental right to work for a living. Vaccine mandates take away that right without good reason. Mandates did not work. Last year Australia had more than 10 million coronavirus cases with more than 90 per cent of the population vaccinated.

The vaccine may have helped older Australians and the vulnerable but there was never any evidence that it stopped transmission. Indeed, Pfizer has admitted to the European Parliament that it did not test whether the vaccine stopped transmission.

And if the vaccine did not stop transmission there was never any justification to force others to get it. We used to live in a free country, but our freedoms were overridden by fear because of COVID.

Today I introduce the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023. My intention in introducing this legislation is to protect those employees who choose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination and acknowledge those thousands of people who lost their jobs when this was made a condition of their ongoing employment.

Getting vaccinated 'to protect others' was the justification used by many businesses to roll out vaccine mandates that saw thousands of people lose their jobs, livelihoods, and careers. People were coerced into receiving COVID vaccinations and boosters as a condition of keeping their job. This Bill seeks to remove the capacity of all employers in the public and private sectors from sacking people because they refuse to get a vaccine that does not stop infection or transmission.

This Bill explicitly provides that "COVID-19 vaccination status" cannot be used by an employer to take 'adverse action' against an employee or prospective employee. Such 'adverse action' includes not hiring a prospective employee, dismissing an employee, and altering the position of the employee to the employee's prejudice.

Employees must be able to maintain their basic and individual rights to choose to get a vaccine or not.

But unfortunately for many employees, Australian governments, and large corporations in their efforts to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, directly threatened, compromised, and attacked these rights—by sacking people from their jobs—on the basis of an imposed condition of employment retrospectively applied.

There are heartbreaking stories of long-serving and highly qualified nurses, teachers, police, ambulance, emergency services officers (even SES volunteers), childcare workers, aged care workers, disability care workers, hospitality workers, pilots, and flight attendants—all being turned away, stood down, asked to show cause why they should keep their job and ultimately sacked—because they refused a mandated vaccine.

There is mounting evidence that these vaccines are largely ineffective at preventing infection or transmission, and the incidence of adverse health impacts from these vaccines (particularly in children, young people and healthy under 50s) far outweighs the number of adverse impacts associated with other disease-eradicating, illness-preventing vaccines that have been safely used in Australia for decades.

In addition to the impact on these peoples' livelihoods, instead of safer communities and functioning workplaces, we have suffered critical skills shortages in critical sectors like health, education, retail and hospitality, police and emergency services.

I don't disagree that we need to protect the vulnerable and there are plenty of examples where vaccines have been, and continue to be, an inherent requirement of the position. Examples like the flu vaccine for staff and visitors in aged care facilities; diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough in health clinics, hospitals, and childcare centres; and Hepatitis A and B for police and ambulance officers. Protecting themselves and the vulnerable people they serve and support.

Over many years, more and more vaccines have been safely developed and administered that prevent childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and meningococcal infections.

Many of you would have travelled overseas and been required to be vaccinated against diseases like cholera, typhoid and yellow fever in order to enter certain countries.

With most restrictions on free movement lifted, there is a collective feeling in Australia that the COVID-19 pandemic is effectively over.

It's not over for the many thousands of Australians who remain locked out of their jobs by COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Public sector bureaucracies (most notably state health and education systems) continue to pursue sanctions and penalties against workers who did not obey vaccine mandates—in some cases despite the fact the mandates in question have been lifted. I am sure Gladstone would take some obstetricians right now even if they were unvaccinated.

Mandates are also still in effect across parts of the private sector. Major retail chains have vaccine mandates. BHP continues to enforce vaccine mandates in our region, although it has recently been reported that they are finally considering reversing this policy.

There is absolutely no evidence for the continuation of vaccine mandates.

This vaccine mandate madness protects no-one's health because it has been demonstrated beyond doubt the mandated COVID-19 vaccines are not preventing transmission or infection.

We must defend and protect individual's human and workers' rights.

Businesses are ignoring the evidence against unjustified vaccine mandates. A clear message needs to be sent that unreasonable directions that infringe on workers' rights have no place in Australian workplaces.

Any business that sacks someone for not getting a coronavirus vaccine now should be guilty of unfair dismissal.

This Bill seeks to reinforce workers' rights to refuse a workplace direction where it is not a reasonable and justified requirement of the job. It leaves no doubt for employees and employers that vaccine mandates must not be in place unless it is an inherent requirement of the position they hold and the tasks they undertake in that position.

I commend this Bill to you.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 20 February 2023, the following documents relating to the Building Community forums:

(a) any briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction since 23 May 2022 between:

(i) the Department of the Treasury and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office, or

(ii) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office,

in relation to:

(iii) the invitations sent to all invitees to the forums, and

(iv) the criteria used to determine which stakeholders would be considered as 'charity leaders' to be invited to the forums (as described in a social media post made by the Assistant Minister on 15 August 2022);

(b) a copy of all of the invitations sent to all invitees to the forums;

(c) a copy of all visual presentations used and/or materials distributed at the forums;

(d) any follow up briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction from the forums; and

(e) the cost breakdown for each forum, including but not limited to:

(i) venue hire,

(ii) transport,

(iii) catering, and

(iv) travel costs.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

I refer to the notice of motion from Senator Allman-Payne agreed by the Senate on 27 October 2022 for the order for the production of documents No. 69. The senator's request relates to correspondence between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. The immunity claims public interest immunity over documents relating to the senator's request on the ground that disclosure of such documents would cause prejudice to the relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Specifically, disclosure would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with the state government on this and future infrastructure funding arrangements.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statements made by the minister regarding the choices of the Gabba as a redevelopment venue for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics and the refusal of the government to comply with two separate orders for the production of documents.

I think the minister for appearing, but I must say that I am not satisfied with the explanation provided. The argument that release of these documents would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states is spurious and should be subservient to public's right to know about major projects that will affect them. The Senate rejected the claim of public interest immunity made by the minister and affirmed that '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.'

I do note that the previous order for the production of documents stated that the minister should consult with the Queensland government if a public interest immunity claim is being made and seek agreement to publish the information or invite reasoning if the state government opposes the release of the information. The minister should also have made the Senate aware that this had occurred. It seems that this has not occurred, as stipulated in the original order for the production of documents. This simply reinforces the fact that the federal and Queensland governments are not interested in letting Queenslanders know about or have a say in major infrastructure projects and the funding arrangements that support them.

This isn't the murky depths of national security policy execution. It isn't the exercise of sensitive bilateral relations between two nations. It isn't even commercial-in-confidence—not that I would be swayed by that argument if it appeared. No, this is a case of the public's right to know about a sporting infrastructure program that would level a state primary school and reshape the community all for the sake of a two-week sporting event. The Gabba stadium project was announced in April 2021. It's been almost two years since then, and yet we still have no answers regarding the future of East Brisbane State School. Construction may begin in 2025. Parents with kids starting prep now don't know if their kids will make it to year 3 without having to shift schools. They deserve clarity.

Prior to the bid, the government was talking about holding the opening ceremony at Metricon Stadium or at Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre in Nathan or building a new stadium at Albion. Why have these ideas been scrapped? There's been no public consultation on this. There's speculation in the media now that they might be looking to ring-fence this project from federal funds so that the Commonwealth can distance itself while still throwing money at the Olympics. If that's true, that's a huge admission that this is a toxic project. If the federal government knows this is a bad deal, why not share this reasoning with the people of Queensland? Better yet, it should stop protecting its mates in Queensland Labor and use the power it's got in funding the Olympics to tell them to have another look and give the community a real say.

Queensland Labor are doing everything they can to stop the community from learning about the Olympics or having any say about their own community. The community has a right to know. That's why the Senate has ordered the government to tell us what's going on. I want to thank the other parties that supported our bid to compel an explanation from the minister. As Senator McKenzie said earlier today, we don't always agree on public policy, but it's heartening to see a mutual interest in accountability in this case.

The government often talks about the need for the Brisbane 2032 Olympics to leave a positive legacy. If the federal government progresses with plans to help fund the demolition and rebuilding of the Gabba stadium as the main athletics track, the biggest legacy could be the loss of the East Brisbane State School and Raymond Park. There is a $2.5 billion projected cost for an upgrade which will only provide 8,000 extra seats, all for a two-week sporting event, which is an absolute criminal waste of public funds at a time when schools and hospitals across the country are suffering from chronic underfunding.

East Brisbane State School has over 311 students, having grown by more than 38 per cent in the last few years. It's a very diverse school, with students from 39 language groups and a specialised English program for refugee children. It is also a 123-year-old school on the Queensland Heritage Register, and it is the only public primary school in a catchment which is a rapidly growing local area. Currently, around 70 per cent of families walk, scoot or ride to school, emphasising the importance of having a well-placed and accessible school for this local community.

Thousands of residents have signed petitions, written to the government and rallied to save their school and local park. The Greens will be standing with them for a better outcome. The local community will not be letting this go. These billions of dollars could go towards proper public education funding or housing. We are calling on the government to make it a condition of any federal funding that the Queensland government drop the costly and destructive Gabba stadium project.

I rise to put the opposition's full support behind this motion from the Greens. Again, it is fantastic to stand as one on the role of this chamber in our parliamentary democracy. Once again, we have seen Senator Watt have to do Minister King's dirty work and shuffle ashamedly as a Queensland senator into this chamber for an infrastructure minister who is not across her brief and who seeks to treat this chamber and the taxpayers' money that she is in charge of with disrespect. We just asked a simple question.

They are the government; they can make decisions. But they have to tell us. If they're going to actually claim public interest immunity in this place, there are certain reasons why they can claim that. They say it would prejudice the relationship between the Palaszczuk government in Queensland and the Albanese Labor government here in Canberra. I find that pretty hard to believe. One of the things under the standing orders of the Senate is that you have to write to the state you are claiming that about and ask: 'Do you have a problem with us releasing this? Do you have a problem with us talking about this?' You ask them. The minister came in and, once again, could not actually answer that question.

If you look back on their time in opposition, they crowed a number of times about how they would approach accountability and transparency. Senator Gallagher said, 'The Senate should not accept it,' and that we should 'stand up' and actually demand transparency and accountability for government. They get on the Treasury benches and within nine months they are running as far as they can from their own public decisions.

I was on ABC Brisbane this morning, talking about this exact issue. The listeners in Brisbane are absolutely incensed about this. I think earlier contributions made clear they're concerned about the impact that this redevelopment will have on their local community, they're very concerned with the lack of consultation and they're incredibly concerned about the cost. I just want to read some of the comments of ABC Brisbane listeners on this: 'Leave the Gabba alone.'; 'It would be a short-term disaster for the Olympics, especially with Cross River Rail.'; 'The Olympics needs a purpose-built facility for this major global event, not a retrofit designed to show the management of companies seeking to run both Brisbane live venues and the Gabba after the Olympics.'; and 'I don't know anyone in the proposed business plan, which speaks volumes about the fact that we're potentially committing to a project that there is potentially no business plan for.' Another caller said: 'We don't know anyone in our area in favour of the Gabba development for the games. We'll keep messages going to our reps in parliament.' It's not always friendly country for the AFL up in Queensland, but 40,000 Lions AFL members and Gabba members are absolutely deafened by the silence from the Palaszczuk government and the Albanese government. Another comment was: 'Anyone unfortunate enough to drive through the roads surrounding the Gabba should be asked their opinion. The Olympic Committee should come up with another, more feasible, stadium.'

Just on that: we know the Gabba Redevelopment wasn't part of the Olympics bid. The former coalition government had a process in place with the Palaszczuk government. We'd fund fifty-fifty of that infrastructure, and we'd have an oversight body so that we could both be assured that the public spend would be in both the state and the national interest for taxpayers, and deliver legacy projects for the people of Queensland that were great for our athletes and great for the hundreds of thousands of spectators that will come to see the games in eight years time—but that would, importantly, leave a legacy for the citizens of Queensland and the broader Australian community.

This federal Labor government cannot make a decision to save themselves. It's nine months later, and the whole process has stalled. You've got public schools concerned, parents concerned and students concerned, because Catherine King and Anika Wells can't get their act together.

Excuse me. It is very disrespectful when you don't refer to people in the other place by their correct titles, so I will remind you of that.

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I am absolutely respectful of the people concerned about this project in Brisbane. The quote, though, that I think really summed it up on ABC Brisbane this morning was: 'I've previously voted Labor at a state level in Queensland, but if the Gabba construction goes ahead my vote will go elsewhere. They need to listen to the people.'

Senator Chisholm, this is your home state, this is your Labor state government and this is your federal Labor government. I don't blame the Palaszczuk government. I blame federal Labor for stalling this and for the disrespect they've treated the Senate with by coming in and saying, 'We don't have to actually give you any information on this particular project.' Well, it turns out you do, because it's going to cost the federal taxpayer billions of dollars. People don't feel they're being consulted. They're concerned about a Gabba Redevelopment that wasn't even part of the Olympics bid.

What's concerning for the international community that I've been speaking to about the Olympics build isn't the Gabba Redevelopment; it's how we get hundreds of thousands of spectators out to events. There are road and rail projects that need to be built for these games to be successful, and we want them to be successful. But they haven't even been started. There's an eight-year lead time. They need to be planned. They need to be tendered. There needs to be construction. It's going to look like Rio if you don't get your act together.

I rise to support Senator Allman-Payne in her courageous efforts to try to get more information in relation to what's happening in relation to the Gabba Redevelopment proposal. It is astounding, absolutely astounding, that the minister attends here today and says that because it may damage relationships between the federal and state governments he cannot give us any information. They haven't even asked them! Why don't they pick up the phone and ask Premier Palaszczuk: 'Do you mind? The Senate is keen to get this information. We think there should be transparency and we think that people have a right to know. Do you mind if we hand this information over to the Senate in accordance with the resolution of the Senate, the house of review?'

They didn't even ask; they didn't even pick up the phone and ask! How do they know it's going to damage relationships when they don't even ask? Maybe they thought they'd get an answer they didn't want, so they didn't ask? They didn't ask so that they could just come in and glibly claim public interest immunity. Maybe that was the whole strategy all along: don't ask the question if you think you might get a answer you don't want. It's absolutely shameful!

I had the pleasure of taking my good friend Senator Ruston for a walk around the Gabba, and we had a look at the East Brisbane State School. This is one of the oldest state schools in my home state of Queensland, constructed in 1899. It is actually on the Queensland Heritage Register. You can have a look; anyone here, I'll give you the reference number. Go to the Queensland Heritage Register, 601476—that's the registration number on the Queensland Heritage Register. Why is it on the register? Because the place is considered to have great significance with respect to the development of Brisbane. Why is it on the register? Because of its aesthetic value. If you see the red-brick building, which was done in an arts and crafts fashion, it is a beautiful, beautiful school in the middle of a beautiful community.

The parents in that community want answers. They want answers! What is going to happen to their school? It is such an important part of their community. For those of us who watch the track record of the Labor government in Queensland carefully, their first estimate with respect to the Gabba Redevelopment—which would abolish this school—was $1 billion. What you get for $1 billion? You get 8,000 additional seats. By my maths, that's $120,000 per seat. Does that make sense to anyone in this place? That was their first estimate. The estimate has now gone up. We're up now to about $2.5 billion, which is 2½ times more—no wonder they won't show us the documents. If I were sitting on that side of the chamber, I'd be saying, 'How do you expect me to sign up to 50 per cent of the funding for this redevelopment when the cost has gone from $1 billion to $2.5 billion in less than 18 months?' It's astounding.

The people of Queensland deserve to have all the information in relation to this proposal. There are parents and their children in that community today who are concerned about the future of their school. There are people, and I've spoken to them, who went to that school decades ago, and they've raised concerns directly with me about what's going to happen to that school. It is part of Queensland's heritage; it is on the Queensland Heritage Register, and the people of Queensland deserve answers—not flimsy claims of public interest immunity which are not in the public interest of that local community in East Brisbane and not in the public interest of the people of Queensland, who deserve open government and transparency.

Sadly, this is the second time I have stood here today to draw to the attention of the people who are listening and of the people who, hopefully, will be reading the contributions made by my colleagues and by senators from the Greens in relation to the absolute refusal of this government to be transparent about the expenditure of taxpayers' money.

All we want to know is what the government's intentions are in relation to the funding of infrastructure for the 2032 Olympic Games. Australians are so proud of our sporting culture. We are so proud of our sporting reputation. And we're so proud of the fact that, invariably, when we put on international sporting events, we are heralded around the world as one of the best when it comes to putting on these events.

It is a great deal of concern to us, and Senator McKenzie and I have been speaking about this for some time now, that at this stage, only nine years out—I know that sounds like a long time. But it's not a very long time when you're building the kind of infrastructure and event that the Olympic Games will need to be, to showcase Australia at its best and enable our athletes to stand proud on the international sporting stage for Australia.

We want to know why this government will not provide us, this parliament, and the Australian public with assurances that they have everything in hand. As you just heard from Senator McKenzie and Senator Scarr, there are a whole heap of things that seem to be floating around in the media, about discussions between the federal government and the state government of Queensland, that don't seem to be part of any agreements officially struck in relation to our hosting agreement for the 2032 Olympic Games.

When we were in government, we were very clear about the decision that we would put in place a fifty-fifty funding agreement based on the IOC host agreement for infrastructure build. As Senator McKenzie said, the Gabba redevelopment was not contingent on that host agreement, yet this has been put into the public narrative as if it somehow was. We said we wanted an independent joint oversight authority for overseeing delivery of the infrastructure.

Successive governments in this place have always placed a great deal of importance on Infrastructure Australia, a body that has oversight of the expenditure of hundreds of millions and billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money. We've always considered, in this place, that this was an important thing to do. That was why we put in to say that our fifty-fifty agreement to funding with the Queensland government would be contingent on the establishment of such an authority.

I do not understand why the current government will not tell us whether they will establish that authority and provide the level of oversight that taxpayers of Australia, rightly, should expect for expenditure of their money, why they won't tell us what the funding agreement is between the Commonwealth and the state government of Queensland and why they won't tell us what is included in that agreement. It comes as a great deal of concern—following what has not been the greatest reputation of a government in Australia around jobs for the mates, payments to unions, allocation of deals without transparency and allegations of corruption in the behaviour of the Queensland government. You would think that this government—the current Albanese Labor federal government—would be very concerned about handing over some sort of blank cheque to the Queensland government.

I very much hope that they're not going to do that, and I very much hope that they're going to stick to the same sort of accountability, governance and transparency measures that we have come to expect. Handing over a blank cheque—or, for that matter, refusing to reveal what is actually going on with these agreements—leaves us with two suggestions and assumptions to make from this.

One assumption is that they are failing to reach an agreement with the Queensland government—that would be a very serious concern to Australians because it jeopardises our ability to put on the games. I think Senator McKenzie's been on the public record as saying that we need to make sure these games are the best games ever, because the last thing we want to see happen is a fight between the Commonwealth and the Queensland government and we end up with a Rio type games. We can do so much better than that. We deserve to deliver for the Australian public so much more than that. The refusal of this government to provide any information around this particular arrangement leaves us with a great deal of concern.

The other obvious assumption one could jump to, if it's not that they haven't been able to strike a deal, is that they have struck a deal but they just don't want to tell us about it. One would suggest that if they'd struck a really good deal they probably would want to tell us about it. As we saw with the request for information in relation to correspondence between the South Australian and Commonwealth governments about the infrastructure build in my home state of South Australia, the minister comes in here and drops a public interest immunity claim—without any justification as to why he believes the revealing of this particular information is not in the public interest.

Once again I'll put on the record that we absolutely support the value of public interest immunity claims, as they are a mechanism by which we can protect commercial-in-confidence information and other things, such as relationships. But absolutely no evidence has been provided by this government or by this minister as to why their relationship with the Queensland government would be damaged by the release of this information. So we are absolutely supportive of the motion that has been moved by the Greens, demanding that this government come clean with this information.

As Senator Scarr said, we were told initially that the Gabba development was going to be $1 billion, notwithstanding the fact that the IOC hosting agreement did not require the Gabba as part of the infrastructure build for the games. My understanding was that Suncorp Stadium was supposed to be the stadium that is going to host the opening and closing ceremonies. Then, in the blink of an eye, it's now $2.5 billion. Who's conning who here? Is this just a wonderful cash grab by Premier Palaszczuk to see if she can sucker this government into providing Australian taxpayer funds to upgrade a facility that is not required for the delivery of the games?

I suppose the thing that remains the most concerning to me is that we are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and Australia's reputation as one of the best hosts, if not the best host, of international sporting events in the world is being jeopardised by a lack of transparency from this government. So if it does not seem like a reasonable thing that everybody in this chamber and the Australian public have the right to know how billions of their dollars are going to be spent, I think that just shows great contempt by this government for this place and for the people of Australia.

We're sent here to do a really, really important role. I can remember being lectured day after day after day by those opposite, when we were sitting on that side, any time we came in here and tried to suggest that there was some piece of information that shouldn't be released. I certainly know I always used to try and make sure I had a very sound reason behind why I wasn't releasing a piece of information. But they're just saying, with complete contempt and arrogance, 'We're not going to give you anything at all about spending billions of Australian taxpayers' dollars, but we're also not even going to tell you why.' It's just apparently going to damage the relationship between a Labor federal government and a Labor state government! I just cannot understand how the minister, who is clearly under instructions from the substantial minister for infrastructure, in the other place, can just come in here, dump this and run.

Clearly, there is a level of transparency and accountability that is missing from this government, which is so extraordinarily hypocritical when you consider that was the mantra that it took to the Australian public when it sought to be elected by the Australian public. It seems to me this government is happy to make all the headlines, all the promises and all the nice lines, and tell the Australian public everything they want to hear—that it is going to do everything that the Australian public, rightly, should expect them to do. But, when it comes to delivering, they say, 'Sorry, we won't tell you anything about it,' or maybe, 'We just won't do it.'

I would say to those opposite: have a very serious think, because we're going to keep coming back to this. And I thank the Greens, because obviously they are equally as interested in transparency as we are. We're going to keep coming back into this chamber and using the power of this chamber to demand transparency from this government, the executive government of this country, on the decisions it makes that affect Australian lives and the expenditure of Australian taxpayers' hard-earned funds. We'll keep doing that, and, if you want to keep being contemptuous towards the Australian public by refusing to answer, we'll keep telling them that you are contemptuous.

I rise to make a contribution to this important debate to take note of the minister's response—or, effectively, nonresponse—to the order for the production of documents in relation to the Gabba project. Senator Allman-Payne raised this order for the production of documents specifically in relation to the school, but I think constituents in Senator Scarr's state of Queensland have genuine cause to be concerned about this circumstance. I quote the words of Minister Grace Grace describing the Gabba project, saying:

We do not know the footprint, we do not know the design, we have a schematic sketch, we are still stabbing in the dark.

I was the Minister for Sport when this project was sprung on the previous coalition government. Only a few days after received a list of proposed projects that the government wanted funding for for the Olympic bid, this sudden announcement of the Gabba project appeared, and that's exactly why the then government said, 'We're prepared to support a fifty-fifty funding bill for the 2032 Olympics and Paralympics, but on the condition that there is a process of discipline put in place to provide oversight to protect taxpayers in the expenditure of billions of dollars.' We did that so the Commonwealth would have a say as part of that process.

As has been said by my colleagues, there's been no indication whether the current government intends to continue with what was the core element of that fifty-fifty deal—that there would be a body in place to provide the Commonwealth and the state, but particularly the Commonwealth, some protection for taxpayers' funds in the planning and construction of those projects. It's a very, very sensible discipline to be put in place to protect Australian taxpayers in the expenditure of billions of dollars. I suspect the real reason this government doesn't want to provide this information: it's not to protect the relationship between the Australian government and the Queensland government but to protect both governments from embarrassment at the situation that exists right now.

The time for debate has expired.

Question agreed to.

A letter has been received from Senator Lambie:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted for Senate discussion:

Australians have the right to know who's funding Australia's political parties, even if the parties don't want them to.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Australians have the right to know who's funding Australia's political parties even if the parties don't want them to. I shouldn't have been surprised last week, which I wasn't; you'd think I would be surprised by this place and the greed, but here we are. We've just found out how much money everyone took from big business and corporations during the elections. We found this out eight months after the election is done and dusted, yet we're talk about transparency. This is great! Too bad for the public if there are nasty surprises. They have to wait until after their elected people get elected.

Australians deserve to know who's funding parties even if the parties don't want them to know—especially if they don't want them to. The major parties don't want you to know who's funding them. That doesn't pass the pub test. What have they got to hide? You deserve to know who is buying political influence in this place. When someone claims to be independent but then accepts thousands of dollars from big business, you have to ask: What strings are attached to that? Who are they really here to represent? We all know these donations aren't usually made from the goodness of their hearts. They always want something in return; you owe them. Candidates have got to be kidding themselves if they say those donations don't come with conditions attached. Let's be honest: no-one wants to upset the person that bankrolls their seat. Australians should know whose purse strings are backing the candidate before they head to the ballot box. The Jacqui Lambie Network released our donation information during the election, and we've got a much smaller team than they do, so why can't they do the same job? I can tell you why: we stick to our guns, and we don't take money from the big boys.

Tasmanians deserve to know that no one is buying our seats. Every donation that comes through the Jacqui Lambie Network comes from small individual donors. It comes from the little old lady on the street who gave me five bucks for a coffee. It comes from volunteers who dream of a better future for Tassie and better representation in parliament than we have now. I'm so grateful for every single person who gave me and has always given me those $5 and $10 small donations because I can tell you, they add up. I'm very grateful. Because of you, we got Tammy elected. We earned it. We didn't buy it. Tammy went out there and spent every weekend, every bit of time she had off, going around Tasmania when she could—she earned it, just like the network is supposed to.

Like everyone else, I'm sick to death of hearing about these fundraisers that buy seats for thousands of dollars in the name of fish-and-chip lunches. Let's be honest. Last year over $137 million was donated by just 10 individuals—10 people! That's 77 per cent of all political donations made in 2022. That's influence. That's ten very big influencers you have now influencing parliament. Honestly, the lengths these parties go to in order to pull the wool over your eyes about their donations is ridiculous. Currently, any donation over $14,500 needs to be disclosed. But don't worry! Have no fear, because every day you can give 14,499 bucks—every day of the year—and that does haven't to be disclosed. There's no backing it up together the next day—you can do that every day of the week if you want. If a business or union is giving lots of $10,000 to a political party, you should know about it.

It doesn't take blind Freddy to see what we need to change in donation rules around here. The major parties continue to drag their feet on it, but I will drag them kicking and screaming to get things changed. Real-time donation disclosure—and there's no excuse not to have it—lower thresholds and aggregate donations are just the tip of the iceberg, but they make a huge difference. I'm sure Australians will be very happy to see this transparency going on.

Some people have asked why there was no information on the Jacqui Lambie Network from the Australian Electoral Commission donation disclosures. I can tell you why: we don't take money from the big boys. Tasmanians deserve to know that no one is buying our seats. We've actually earned them. That's what we do. I've always promised you that, and we do that. That will never change. You will never, ever be able to buy or influence the Jacqui Lambie Network, otherwise my time in here is up.

I'm so grateful to every single person that has given us a $5 or $10 small donation because it has come from the people who really believe in what we do and know that what we're doing is right. Because of you, we got Tammy elected, and that is great. I'm very grateful for that, and we will continue on that line. We will lead by example, and hope that one day before I leave this place political donations are not sitting there to buy influence in this chamber. That is where we're at. That is a lack of trust in the Australian people. You guys are coming in for transparency and trust, and so far there's nothing about political donations—nothing at all. Seriously! Start with that. Then you start with your transparency, and you will get your trust. It's as simple as that.

Before I get into the full topic at hand, on a slight tangent—Senator McAllister, stop looking at me like that!

Someone's listening!

Someone is listening! It makes a change. I want to talk about the upcoming referendum. I welcome the government's claim that it will support a yes and no pamphlet being sent out to every Australian household. Regardless of your position on the voice, it is very important that any constitutional change is carefully considered. To us on this side of the chamber, that means three particular things in relation to that bill that Labor have proposed. The first is that there should be a yes and no pamphlet, because that goes to people's households. Evidence supplied by the Electoral Commission said that during the election up to 40 per cent of Australians campaign got election information from written material sent out by the Electoral Commission.

The second is that there should be an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign to help with the compliance that comes with receiving donations. Political parties are professional bodies but, contrary to sometimes popular 'misopinion', are not particularly well staffed and don't have hundreds of people working for them. Indeed, in my own LNP in Queensland we have about 10 people working for us, three or four in the compliance section. Sometimes political parties do make mistakes when they are lodging their returns. Those are always unintentional mistakes, and the ECQ and the AEC understand that. That's why it's very important for the upcoming referendum that there is an official 'yes' and 'no' body that can assist with the receipt of donations, to ensure that the donations received comply with the federal laws that cover donations; in particular, to ensure that foreign donations are not received.

The third is that we think there needs to be a change to the government's legislation, which also comes under the subject of donations, so that there is equal public funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases. It would be disappointing if a government that talked about goodwill and the country coming together sought—as a cynic might suggest—to gerrymander a result by restricting people's access to information that would enable them to carefully consider the changes to the Constitution, a document that essentially is the backbone of Australia. We need to make sure that any changes improve Australia, rather than leading to deleterious changes as such.

The position of the National-Liberal coalition is that we obviously do support the current regime. We do support the view that Australians should see where donations come from and rules should be complied with in a timely manner. We don't see the need to change the current regime. People who donate money over a certain threshold are publicly identified. My experience in Queensland is probably similar to Senator Lambie's. She may not believe this, but my party is funded by good old raffles. At every meeting we go to—and Senator Scarr is the same—if we don't turn up with a raffle prize we get into trouble.

And you can't win the raffle.

And you can't win the raffle.

An honourable senator: You've got to re-donate it.

You've got to donate it back.

Re-draw.

There has to be a re-draw. You've also got to make sure you've got cash on you. That is how branches are actually run. What we should be doing is making it easier for people to get involved in the political process and easier for them to support the political movement of their choice, rather than making it harder.

I, too, rise to speak on the matter of public importance that's been raised here in the Senate. Before I talk about some of the history of political donations reform, I want to say at the outset that government senators completely reject the assertion that's being made here by Senator Lambie, which is that all political parties have the same history and approach to political donations. Over the many years that we were in opposition we brought a number of reforms to this place to try to make the system of donations a lot more accountable and transparent.

The assertion, too, is that members in this place and the other place engage in some form of corruption. I think Senator McGrath made the point about engagement with the local branches and the members of our respective parties, whether it be through raffles, sausage sizzles or other forms of political donation, and how we raise money in the lead-up to an election campaign—there's no secret about that. I know so many hardworking candidates who unfortunately weren't elected at the last election and who will put their hand up again. They'll put six months of leave on the table to go out and run for the party because they believe in the movement, they believe in the cause and they believe in representing their local community. They'll do so by having raffles. They'll do so by having sausage sizzles. They'll do so by going to local community groups and raising money, and there is nothing wrong with that. But different political parties do have different approaches and histories on this issue of political donation.

I suggest, Senator Lambie, that we should not paint all political parties with the same brush on the issue of political donations.

Pursuant to order agreed earlier today, the Senate is about to move to the consideration of disallowance motions but will return to this matter at the conclusion of that consideration, and you will be in continuation.

I move:

That Schedules 3 and 4 to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022, made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, be disallowed [F2022L00047].

The climate wars have left us with a very piecemeal climate policy. Here in Australia, there are more than 80 different piece of legislation that relate to energy and various elements of climate policy. Clearly, a price on carbon would be a better way to do this—better for business, better for the environment. Disappointingly, that is politically unpalatable, so we have to make the most of what we have. We have to ensure that we empower businesses to seize the opportunities of decarbonisation. We need to build as much certainty as possible and, crucially, as much integrity as possible.

Proposed changes to the safeguard mechanism mean that there will be an even greater reliance on carbon offsets, so it's more critical than ever to ensure that the methods to create carbon credits have integrity. Carbon credits are necessary in the hardest-to-abate sectors. They also have the potential not only to capture carbon but also to bring secondary benefits such as land restoration and increased biodiversity. They have the potential to reward land managers across the country for the work that they are doing in caring for and restoring the areas where they live and farm. But carbon offsets are also a high-risk environmental policy instrument. It's easy to create false abatement, to create credits that aren't actually sequestering carbon or voiding carbon emissions. Rarely will we have absolute confidence that carbon storage is real, additional and permanent, but we can get pretty close, and we should aim high to make a real impact to reduce the change in our climate.

That brings me to the method that I've lodged a disallowance for. It relates to schedules 3 and 4 of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022. Forestry is clearly a valuable and incredibly important contributor to our economy. We should all be grateful to those in the industry who work to create the materials that construct our homes, build our furniture and do countless other valuable things. We do need to incentivise and encourage tree-planting and the plantation forest industry to keep up with demand, as it is key to many in our communities and our economy and it will be for many years to come.

To that end, the first two schedules of the plantation forestry method are not problematic. They appear sound and, in consultations, experts in this field are happy with the way that they have been constructed. They provide credits for establishing new plantations to store carbon and for converting short-rotation plantations to long-rotation plantations. Trees are obviously a good way to store carbon, and we'll need them if we're going to effectively address the climate crisis. However, I am concerned that projects under schedules 3 and 4 would not provide additional carbon storage.

The recent Chubb review considered just three methods used to create carbon credits, and in that review Professor Chubb recommended that no new projects be registered under the avoided deforestation method. The Chubb review did not consider the plantation forestry method; however, schedules 3 and 4 of the method are remarkably similar to the method that his review suggested not be continued with. There are clear shortcomings, and I remain concerned that under these schedules credits would be given for not clearing land that actually would never have been cleared.

We have to have integrity in this market. Allowing these sorts of credits to be created casts doubt and uncertainty on all of the great high-integrity credits out there. So I really urge senators in this place to disallow these two methods and to add to the integrity of our carbon credit market.

I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 and the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed:

(a) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage Projects) Rule 2021 [F2021L01378];

(b) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Carbon Capture and Storage)

Methodology Determination 2021 [F2021L01379]; and

(c) Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Hubs and Technologies Program) Instrument 2021 [F2021L01593].

The Greens are seeking to disallow the rule and the methodology for carbon capture and storage under the Emissions Reduction Fund. Of course, those instruments are hangovers from the Liberal government climate policy—if you can even call it a climate policy. For clarity: Senator Pocock is seeking to disallow the plantation forestry method, and we'll be supporting him in that disallowance motion, but I'll speak primarily to the carbon capture and storage instruments.

Last year, the Australia Institute released a report demonstrating how this carbon capture and storage methodology was developed. Mr Angus Taylor, hand in hand with the fossil fuel industry and the big emitters, who are growing increasingly reliant on offsets to justify their lack of a transition plan, got together and agreed upon it. This CCS methodology would allow Australia's biggest gas companies, like Santos, Woodside and Chevron, to generate credits for burying just a tiny proportion of the gas they extract. This instrument is just another in a very long line of fossil fuel subsidies that should not be supported by the parliament, which is precisely why the Greens are seeking to disallow this Morrison hangover con of a climate-burying methodology.

We know that carbon capture and storage is a con. It's used as a distraction by the coal and gas barons while they keep on extracting more of the products that are destroying our children's future, and, frankly, barely paying any tax while they're doing so. To date, governments have committed over $4 billion on this technology, and there is almost nothing to show for it. There is only one commercial-scale carbon capture and storage project in Australia—that is, the Gorgon LNG complex—and Chevron have had exemption after exemption from their pollution obligations from the Western Australian EPA. This technology has continued to break down on virtually an annual basis and will never sequester anywhere near as much pollution as was claimed by Chevron when they sought to get their environmental approvals.

The third instrument we're seeking to disallow was a good old cash handout for coal and gas donors. The Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Hubs and Technologies Program) Instrument 2021 gave $250 million to companies who invested in carbon capture and storage projects. In November 2021 we moved to disallow a very similar fund, a $50 million CCUS development fund, a motion which the big parties joined together to oppose. I'll note that since this disallowance motion was lodged Minister Bowen has reclaimed the $250 million from this program to put into the government's Powering the Regions Fund. So why not kill the other two instruments, which give yet more cash to coal and gas and which credit dodgy methodologies, while you're at it?

I will speak just briefly to Senator Pocock's motion for the disallowance of the commercial forestry method. We are taking the position of supporting the disallowance because under this method it's easy to credit false abatement or overcredit actual abatement. In other words, it means that one tonne of so-called avoided emissions doesn't always equal one tonne of actual avoided emissions.

Under the government's safeguard mechanism the expansion of coal and gas will be enabled through the purchase of credits like this and, frankly, this method does not provide us with high enough confidence that the emissions abatement will be real or additional. This is important because basic science says that there is no better abatement than leaving coal and gas in the ground when we are in a climate crisis and all the relevant scientists and international bodies are begging us not to open new coal, oil or gas fields. If this parliament were to allow credits like this, we would simply be allowing coal and gas to be extracted while these big tax-dodging and polluting companies greenwash their way to net zero.

So, for these and numerous other reasons, we are moving to disallow the three CCUS methodologies listed in the motion and will also be supporting Senator David Pocock's disallowance of the forestry methodology.

The government doesn't support either of the motions before the Senate, and I just wish to take a few brief moments to speak about why that is so. In relation to the matters raised by Senator David Pocock and the disallowance moved by the senator around schedules 3 and 4 of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination, perhaps I can start with this. We have obviously been through an extended review of the arrangements for the creation of offsets, undertaken by Professor Chubb, and he had this to say in particular about the land sector. He said:

After experimentation and speculation for decades, the only pathway known to science that has the immediate capacity to remove GHG (CO2) from the atmosphere at scale is photosynthesis: the mechanism by which plants and some other organisms use light, CO2 and water to create energy (stored as sugars) to fuel cellular activity and growth.

Science and technology may well develop effective and scalable options to meet the twin challenges of GHG removal and secure long-term (millennial) storage. But to start at scale well before 2050, the land sector will have to carry much of the immediate load, starting now.

I appreciate the points made by the senator in relation to the significance of integrity in this sector and, indeed, the government shares the senator's interest in ensuring that the credits created through the ACCU scheme are of the highest integrity and that the public might have confidence in those credits. That is precisely why we commissioned the review and it's precisely why we have committed to implementing the recommendations made by Professor Chubb.

In relation to the specific mechanism, the plantation forestry method, it allows forest growers to generate Australian carbon credits units by storing carbon in plantation forests. The current method builds on an earlier version. It includes two new activities for keeping forests on land where plantations would otherwise be converted back to non-forest land. The method provides for additional abatement because evidence shows that plantation establishment rates are very low and existing plantations are being replaced with other land uses. Projects using the new activities also need to meet several specific tests to show that they are additional. These tests include providing a declaration and independent financial analysis showing the plantation would otherwise be converted to a more financially attractive land use.

The review undertaken by Professor Chubb did not consider the plantation method specifically, but it did conduct a serious review of the scheme, its governance arrangements and the offsets integrity standard. It was this offsets integrity standard that was used to develop these new schedules to the plantation method. The review found that the offsets integrity standard for developing our key methods is appropriate and consistent with good governance, well regarded by stakeholders and experts and supports confidence in the integrity of ACCUs and the scheme. Specifically, the review found that the overall scheme arrangements are sound and robust, with appropriate checks and balances at the scheme, method and project levels to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits created under it.

I will say this, though: the panel made some important and sensible recommendations to improve the scheme, including around transparency and governance, especially given that we are now at beyond 10 years of operation of this scheme. In particular, the review recommended that the standards should be clearly defined and supplemented with ACCU scheme principles to support consistent application, and it made recommendations on how questions regarding the application of the offset integrity standard and method variation should be considered and undertaken. Recommendation 6 specifically addresses an opportunity to improve, by stating:

The Offsets Integrity Standards (OIS) should be clearly defined and supplemented with ACCU Scheme Principles …

We have accepted all of the review's recommendations in principle.

We are working through implementation now, but it will produce changes in scheme governance, and we would expect that the ACCU scheme would continue to examine all of the methods to ensure that we are using best practice and doing everything we can to ensure the integrity of the scheme and to, indeed, enable the confidence that Senator Pocock referred to in his opening remarks. I will say, though, that these new structures present, or offer us, the best way— (Time expired)

I'll also make a contribution to the debate on these two proposed disallowances. At the outset I'll say that the opposition will be opposing both of the proposals put forward here. I appreciate the remarks made by the minister around the scheme and the purpose behind it. I'll start with the forestry plantation methodology. As someone who had a hand in going to the Clean Energy Regulator and seeking a review of what was in place in the early parts of 2021, I'll give some historical context about that. As has been well canvassed in Senate estimates, in this place and in the public domain, there is great difficulty in growing our forest estate to meet the demand that we actually talked about in question time today. This was one of those policy levers that the then government, and obviously the current government, thought was a good lever to have in place to be able to incentivise investment in plantation forestry to get us on a pathway to meet demand.

I appreciate, as Senator McAllister did, the points that have been made by Senator Pocock and the reason for him moving this disallowance motion, and I accept the arguments he's put forward. The thing we have to do here is balance up our responsibilities. We import so much timber into this country—a huge amount of it—much of it from places that don't do forestry well and, in fact, rip it out of the ground and don't care one iota for their environment. I know there will be some people in this chamber who don't agree with the point I'm about to make, which is that we do it to world's best standard, and, on the way through, we create jobs in many regional communities, where they're most needed. This methodology, as it was drafted in 2021, was about trying to grow that sector, create more jobs, create more resource, suck in more carbon, lock it up forever in beautiful timber products and incentivise that investment and use of this material—perhaps displacing concrete, steel and other, more carbon-intensive materials as well. That was the purpose behind it.

As I say, I understand the points that are being made, but, for the purposes of seeking to grow this industry and noting that many of the key stakeholders in that sector said this is one way we will be able to unlock that investment, it is one of the key hurdles. We have farmers we normally contract with who are saying, upon harvest, they now want to turn that land into pasture because there's more money and easier returns in growing certain types of crops or heading into dairy, for example, in certain parts of Tasmania. Obviously it takes a while to see the fruit borne from this scheme, but I remain confident that it will do what we intended it would. For that reason, we won't be supporting that disallowance.

On the disallowance motion moved by Senator Waters, I don't agree with the assessment that under this new safeguard mechanism proposal put forward by the government there'll be this flurry of seeking to grab ACCUs to cover over the emissions, because there won't be enough ACCUs. There just will not be enough. All the modelling is suggesting there'll be a massive shortfall, even with schemes like this in place. So, in the end, they'll just end up paying this massive tax that's going to be imposed instead. The disallowance is a bad one in this regard, and we won't be supporting it, but I appreciate the work that has been put in. That is the opposition's position.

I just want to bring one point to the attention of the chamber. There were some remarks made around carbon capture and storage. I'll just note this: I think all senators should be looking at what's happening around the world et cetera in terms of all the different ways, the different methodologies, there are to address this issue. I refer senators to a press release on the European Commission's website on 12 January 2023 which is entitled 'State aid: Commission approves 1.1 billion euro Danish scheme to support rollout of carbon capture and storage technologies'. This technology is moving very quickly around the world. I think we have to be open-minded with respect to the technologies that we bring to bear in terms of addressing these issues.

There are two matters simultaneously before the Chair. I propose to put the first one, by Senator Pocock, and then follow with Senator Waters's motion. So the question is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

Before the debate was interrupted, I was saying that different political parties have different approaches and histories on this very issue, so I would suggest that we should not paint all political parties with the same brush on the issue of political donations. But I do thank Senator Lambie for providing the chamber with an opportunity to at least reflect on some of the proud history that federal Labor has in this particular subject.

Back in the eighties, it was former prime minister Bob Hawke who first introduced political donation disclosure regime reforms. It was Prime Minister Hawke's government that established an electoral commission, independent from government, that now publishes details about how political donations are managed and via a transparent register. Under the political donations regime established by federal Labor, donations over $1,000 had to be declared. It was subsequently a Liberal government that increased the threshold to $10,000 and linked it to $10,000. That's how we've ended up with the current disclosure threshold of $15,000.

It was also Labor's amendments while in opposition that linked public election funding to its campaign expenditure. These amendments prevent political parties from profiting off our electoral system. And, of course, it was Labor that acted to protect our democracy from foreign interference, forcing the then coalition government to ban foreign political donations.

But we know our task on political donation reform is not done. I think a significant theme out of the election last year was that Australians deserve far more integrity and transparency in our political system. Obviously a significant component of how Labor is delivering on this front is the National Anti-Corruption Commission, but further political donation reform is also important. I think that has been acknowledged by the Special Minister of State, Senator Don Farrell.

In opposition, it is important to note, we did bring forward legislation before the Senate to lower the disclosure threshold, back to a fixed $1,000, and required donations to be closed within seven days. This would have brought our donation laws in line with community expectations and given every Australian the opportunity to see who donates to politicians, before they go to the ballot box.

The Albanese government understands that political donation reform isn't just about doing what's popular in any given sitting period; it's about setting up an effective system that meets community expectations and can also withstand the inevitable political shifts and changes that occur in this place and across Australia more broadly. That is why this kind of reform is most effective and sustainable when it is implemented with broad support of this parliament.

S (—) (): Last week, we finally got to see how the 2022 election was funded and who filled the coffers of the big parties. It shows what it always shows: big money is running politics. While Clive Palmer's multimillion-dollar donation to his own party dominated the news, the Labor, Liberal and Nationals also raked in $240 million in funds. Donations to political parties continue to reap rewards for the donors. It's why we have weak safeguard laws and more coal and gas projects are being opened in a climate crisis. It's why reforms to hold the financial sector to account or to regulate gambling keep stalling. It's why governments continue to spend millions on consultants at the expense of the Public Service.

In some ways, a bigger story than the donations we know about is the donations we don't know about. The source of at least 30 per cent of donations to political parties remains unknown. That's just not good enough. Our current laws are full of loopholes to avoid transparency. Donors can contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars as 'membership fees' to party affiliated business forums and not report that as a donation. Donors can donate to affiliated bodies who then funnel the money to the party without disclosing where it came from. Donors can spend thousands of dollars on a dinner with the minister but it's not a donation if they think they got value for money from the event.

It's very easy to see how fossil fuel companies getting in the ear of the minister and getting massive public subsidies to keep destroying the planet think that they're getting value for money. Donations below $15,200 don't need to be disclosed at all, which inspires a lot of donors to make out their cheque to $15,190. Donors can make big donations to political parties and voters don't find out until 20 months later—well after the election.

We urgently need donation caps, to get big money out of politics. We need election spending caps to put an end to the arms race that makes parties so reliant on political donations, and we need reforms to ensure that all donations over $1,000 are disclosed in real time so that people know when they go to the ballot box who's pulling the strings of the parties they're voting for.

The Greens have been campaigning for decades to clean up our democracy, and we urge Labor and the crossbench to join us in supporting reforms to make sure that politicians work in the public interest, not the interests of their corporate big donor mates.

Labor has a proud history of political donations reform. As Senator Ciccone has mentioned, it was the Hawke government that established an independent Electoral Commission to publish details about political donations. It was the same Hawke government that first introduced the political donations disclosure regime and, under Hawke, political donations above $1,000 had to be declared. This was the status quo until a coalition government got into power and decided to link the disclosure amount with the rate of inflation, which caused the disclosure threshold to blow out to the current rate of over $15,000. What can I say? I'm not surprised at the coalition, but I am disappointed.

Nevertheless, Labor maintains its proud tradition of electoral reform in the pursuit of integrity and accountability in government, and it is this proud Labor tradition that I point out to Senator Lambie and others. The donation issue she is talking about is in fact one part of a much broader and deeper suite of reforms that the government is currently considering. These include: mandatory disclosure for donations over $1,000; real-time reporting; reforms to the funding of elections, including donation caps; and public funding for parties and candidates. All these matters are being considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and are things Labor has been talking about for quite some time.

Let's not forget that we took electoral and donation reform to the election in 2022, and we won. As the Special Minister of State has explain repeatedly, for our government electoral reform is about greater integrity and transparency for the Australian people, but it's also about consensus. The government wants to bring the Australian people and the parliament along with it when it comes to electoral reform, and in that spirit of consensus neither myself nor any other government senator is going to pre-empt the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee. That is what the committee is there for—to review issues like the one Senator Lambie is pointing to and then report back to parliament with its findings and recommendations. Once that in-depth process is complete and we have the policy work done, we can and will act on these matters. You don't have to believe me; you just have to look at the record.

It was Labor that forced the coalition government to ban foreign political donations in order to safeguard our democracy from foreign interference and it is the Australian Labor Party that goes above and beyond what is currently required by the rules. Our party discloses all donations above $1,000 federally because we respect transparency and accountability. In opposition, we brought legislation to the Senate to fix the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and require those donations to be disclosed within seven days. Of course, as is often the case with the coalition on matters of integrity, they chose not to support transparency and accountability. Instead, they chose to keep the matter—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sorry, it's not personal; it's just political. They chose to keep the matter of donations hidden from the public. But the coalition are not the only ones standing in the way of electoral reform. Clearly, there is a major issue when Clive Palmer, a person that Senator Lambie is no doubt familiar with, can spend tens of millions on false and misleading advertising in a brazen attempt to undermine our last two elections. Clearly, there is an issue when a sitting prime minister—Malcolm Turnbull—can donate $1.7 million to his own party in an election campaign and not have to disclose that fact for over a year. So, it's clear that reform is needed around the issue Senator Lambie pointed to—not just around donation reform but also around spending caps and truth-in-advertising laws—but it has to be done right and it has to be done thoroughly, not piecemeal or rushed.

I look forward to the report from the Electoral Matters Committee and seeing what it recommends in relation to all these issues, because I know that the federal government—just like the Labor Party in every state and territory—takes donation reform and principles of transparency seriously. Just look at my home state of Victoria. The Andrews government—a Labor government—has introduced donation reform there. Donations from individuals and organisations are capped on a per annum and four-yearly basis. Foreign donations are banned. There is a regular and transparent reporting system, and the Victorian Electoral Commission is properly funded to manage the increased compliance obligation. I'm not saying the Victorian model is perfect in every way, or that it should necessarily apply to the Commonwealth, because I'm not going to be pre-empting the committee process. Rather, I bring up the Victorian example to show that it is Labor governments that lead on election and donation reform.

Actions speak louder than words. Let's remember who legislated for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's why it will be the Labor government that takes the next step in delivering on our proud history of reform to ensure integrity and trust in our political system— (Time expired)

Members of our community expect and deserve to be able to access a GP and medication that they need to without having to break the bank. We also expect that democracy works, where politicians work in the interests of the people who elect them and not in the interests of the corporations who fund their campaigns. Our public health services are, as anyone who is paying attention would be able to tell you, in crisis. The AMA predicts that the elective surgery waiting list will grow to 500,000 by June. That's nearly one in 50 of our community who will be waiting for elective surgery. Private health insurance has become, in many ways, a necessity in this country. If you need a dental care appointment, if you need mental health care or if you need even basic care in a timely fashion, then you often need private health insurance or you will be waiting and paying thousands out of pocket.

While many of us are despairing at the current crisis, there is one group of people and individuals who love the system just the way that it is: private health and pharmaceutical companies. They love the system so much, in fact, that they gave nearly $2 million to the Australian Labor Party and to the coalition in the last couple of years alone. It isn't hard to join the dots between our public health system being under-resourced and private health insurers and pharmaceutical companies lining the pockets of the major parties. The Greens want to see this place ban corporate donations so that companies like Medibank Private and Bupa don't get to influence the direction of health policy in this country. Let us have a health system for people and not for big corporations.

I welcome this MPI from Senator Lambie. It is indeed a matter of public importance. Spending at the recent federal election was a record $439.4 million. Political donation reform is something that Australians want to see happen. I welcome the review that JSCEM is undertaking and the government's commitment to dealing with this. Clearly, we have to deal with this in Australia. Australians want more transparency around political donations and they want to have trust and confidence in our political system, knowing that decisions being made in this place and in the other place are in the best interests of Australians—of all of us—and not about vested interests. When you read through the returns, which we get months and months after the election, they certainly raise some questions as to why there are such large sums of money coming from gambling, alcohol, the banks and fossil fuel companies. Tragically, even tobacco is still a donor to the Nationals.

This needs to stop. We can stop it. It is within the power of the parliament to put in place changes that ensure that there are things like low disclosure thresholds and real-time disclosures. Technology has moved a long way, and it is possible for people, in a reasonable time frame, to see who is donating to elections while they're happening and not after the fact—sometimes six months after the fact.

The Prime Minister warned on Sunday in a speech at the Chifley Research Centre that democracy was 'fragile', and so it needed to be 'nourished, protected, cared for and treated with respect'. That's what he said. Those were his words, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister. But the PM's words beg the question, 'How, Prime Minister?' How do we nourish and protect democracy? Our system of government, where people consent to be governed, is fragile, because it is built entirely upon trust. People give their consent to be governed because they trust that their elected reps will be acting honestly and with integrity. How do you nourish trust? How do you build faith? The answer is transparency. Trust can only exist to the degree of transparency that is given.

The United Australia Party believes in full disclosure of all political donations, no matter how large or how small. The UAP has one donor, just one, and we all know who it is. You can like it or you can not like it, but at least you know. He's an Australian citizen. He loves this country. There's your transparency. That is not the case with the major parties, not the case at all. Some donations may not even be declared. Non-disclosure of donations—what does it do? It raises questions and it creates room for doubt, suspicion, mistrust—the very things that undermine our system of government.

If the Prime Minister truly wants to nourish and protect democracy, he will move to ensure that all political party donations are declared and are on the public record. Transparency creates trust. Trust strengthens democracy. If the PM meant what he said on Sunday about full transparency with regards to political donations, it's something he should embrace without hesitation. Any reluctance to do so increases doubt, suspicion and mistrust. Let's not undermine democracy.

One Nation supports greater transparency and more disclosure of corporate donations. However, we are concerned that moves to reveal small donations and political party membership will discourage greater participation by the Australian people in politics. It's often the case that even a passing association with the conservative parties will see individuals, businesses and organisations attacked by the woke and the loony Green left. For the Left, anything to do with the Right is illegitimate or downright criminal. They are incapable of tolerating any view that departs even the slightest from their orthodoxy and will try to destroy or ruin those who do. The Marxist Greens are the worst perpetrators of this intolerance.

What I have found from businesses who do support One Nation is that they are in fear of giving donations, because if the donations are exposed they will lose government jobs and contracts or be affected by the other side of politics, whether it's the coalition or Labor. There is a dilemma out there for the public. (Time expired)

The time for discussion has expired.

I inform the Senate that the President received today the following letter from Senator Hume:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to reaffirm its commitment to the Coalition's Personal Income Tax Plan that upon full implementation will mean around 95 per cent of taxpayers are expected to face a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent, which Australians need now more than ever thanks to faster bracket creep and greater pressures under Labor's cost of living crisis."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to reaffirm its commitment to the Coalition's Personal Income Tax Plan that upon full implementation will mean around 95 per cent of taxpayers are expected to face a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent, which Australians need now more than ever thanks to faster bracket creep and greater pressures under Labor's cost of living crisis.

We hear a lot of debate in this chamber around stage 3 tax cuts, but it is important to understand exactly what this means, because these tax cuts have to be understood in the context of the other two stages that preceded them. The former coalition government passed the personal income tax plan to deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes for working Australians. These are legislated tax cuts. They are reflected not only in the coalition's budgets but also in Labor's pre-election costings and in the October budget last year.

The final stage of the personal income tax plan will commence in to 2024, on 1 July. At that time, the 37 per cent tax bracket will be abolished entirely, and the 32.5 per cent tax rate will be reduced to 30 per cent. Once fully implemented, this means that 95 per cent of Australian taxpayers are expected to face a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent. This is a significant reform. It's been such a long time coming: lower, simpler, fairer taxes.

Under the Personal Income Tax Plan, an apprentice on $60,000 would pay $1,455 less in tax every year from 1 July 2024, whereas an experienced tradie on, say, $80,000 would pay $1,955 less tax every year from 1 July 2024. More money in the pockets of working Australians is more important than ever, particularly now, as we look down the barrel and buckle under the weight of Labor's cost-of-living crisis—more money to help Australians with their expenses, like mortgage repayments, groceries and energy bills, all of which are going up under this government.

While those opposite would like to talk about just about anything else, this is the No. 1 issue for ordinary Australians right now. Last April, the Treasurer said that this is a full-blown cost-of-living crisis. He used the words 'full-blown cost-of-living crisis'. That was last April. Now, since that time, inflation's at its highest point in 30 years, real wages are going backwards and are forecast to continue to go backwards for the entire term of this parliament, and interest rates are at their highest point in over a decade. However, even with these facts in front of them, the government still will not admit that they are presiding over a real cost-of-living crisis while they are in government.

Last week at the Select Committee on Cost of Living, Woolworths gave evidence that Australians are beginning to change their consumer behaviour and that they are getting increasing demands from their charity partners for up to 20 per cent more in food donations. Customers are beginning to leave things at the checkout rather than putting them into their bags, because their food bills are going up.

At the same time, we know energy prices are going up. Can you name an Australian who hasn't received a bill that has said that their energy prices are going up? Their electricity prices are going up. Their gas prices are going up. Ordinary Australians are feeling the pinch. This is despite a commitment by those opposite to reduce electricity prices by $275—a number they will not even say now that they are in government. They will not repeat the words 'two hundred and seventy-five dollars', and that's because energy bills are skyrocketing under their watch. Just late last year, Prime Minister Albanese promised a $230 reduction in energy prices—again, another promise that has disappeared already. Last week the cost-of-living committee heard from the Australian Energy Regulator that, in fact, investment in energy projects is disappearing entirely, threatening long-term supply, and its massive interventions in the market are actually causing prices to go up, not to go down.

This is a problem for all Australians. But the biggest one, of course, is Labor's addiction to spending, because Labor's addiction to spending—the $23 billion of extra money that was spent in the October budget alone—is one of the reasons why the RBA is being forced to over and over and over again raise interest rates, affecting mortgage holders and other borrowers—ordinary Australians who are feeling this in their pocket every day. We know that inflation and interest rates are both going to go higher under Labor, because Philip Lowe told us that they will. Australians will pay more.

In this environment, the coalition's Personal Income Tax Plan is more important than ever. It is more important for ordinary Australians to keep more of their own money under a simpler, fairer tax system.

I too rise to speak on this urgency motion before the Senate today, submitted by Senator Hume, on tax and the cost of living. First, let me say that our priority when it comes to tax reform is ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax here in Australia. Multinational corporations will pay an extra $1 billion in tax as we clamp down on excessive deductions and profit shifting to other countries. Cracking down on multinational tax avoidance is absolutely key to our government's revenue agenda.

So too, of course, is cracking down on the waste and the rorts that have contributed to a trillion dollars of debt left to us by those opposite without any economic dividend to show for it. It is the waste and the rorts of those opposite that we are setting about fixing. It is the waste and the rorts of those opposite that have left a hole in the budget that has been left to us to repair. The sports rorts, the car park rorts, the airport land rorts—remember those? They are the rorts of a former government that spent taxpayer money like it was a Liberal Party slush fund.

Stop to imagine where we'd be today if those opposite had actually thought about how to invest in the Australian people and in the Australian economy instead of in their own failed re-election plans. Imagine if they had invested in any forward-looking plans to address any of the structural economic causes of the cost-of-living crisis today: if they had invested, for example, in renewable energy generation and transmission; if they had invested in manufacturing and securing our supply chains; if they had invested in the security of Australian women and their ability to participate fully in our economy. Imagine, if those opposite had spent 10 years investing in social and affordable housing, where we would be today in the cost-of-living crisis affecting Australians. Imagine if they had invested in the skills crisis that is holding business back right now, today, and holding Australians back from achieving their full potential.

The former government was asleep at the wheel. They were asleep on climate and energy. They were asleep on jobs and skills. They were asleep on securing manufacturing supply chains. They were asleep on understanding how gender equality drives economic growth. They were asleep on housing supply—absolutely asleep at the wheel. So much could have been done to strengthen our economy for the future in the last decade. So much should have been done. The fact that so little was done to position our country not just fort the challenges ahead but for the opportunities too is a complete dereliction of responsibility. You trashed any notion of good government. You trashed any notion of good economic management. It is Australians who are paying the price now nor a decade of missed opportunities and messed up priorities under the former government.

What we are doing is getting on with delivering the meaningful investments that Australians need, which maximise our economic impact and which meet the needs of the community today. We understand that the cost of living is hitting Australians hard, and so our economic plan is a direct and deliberate response to the challenges facing the economy and that you left behind. That's why one of the very first acts of this government was to successfully argue for an increase to the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. We are proud to be getting wages moving once again in this country after a decade of flat wages brought by those opposite. Our October budget focused on cost-of-living relief and didn't put extra pressure on inflation, and that's the most important thing. Tackling inflation is our top priority.

That, of course, has been noted by the rating agencies, reaffirming our AAA credit rating, pointing to our responsible economic management. We are delivering the economy that Australians need. We are getting wages moving and we are dealing with the cost-of-living pressures that you left behind.

Here we are, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Food, petrol, medicine, transport, rent, electricity, insurance, mortgage repayments—you name it; the price of everything is going up. However, while workers, students, mortgage holders and small businesses are all getting smashed, corporations are making record profits. Real wages are going backwards, but company profits are at record highs. Inequality is increasing before our very eyes, and yet here we are today—here are the Liberals today—asking the Senate to endorse a $9,000-a-year tax cut for billionaires. How out of touch can you get! They are tax cuts for the super-rich that will further fuel inflation, further fuel inequality, and make the cost-of-living crisis worse for everyone except for those who are already very wealthy.

That's what you expect from the Liberals, but the real issue here is the Australian Labor Party, once the party of the workers but now just another political party for the asset-owning class. Labor senators know that the stage 3 tax cuts are bad policy. Labor has actually never once run the argument that stage 3 tax cuts are good policy—never once—because they know that they're not. They only supported the stage 3 tax cuts for the very wealthy to neutralise the issue so as to give themselves the best chance of winning the election. Make no mistake about it, Labor's policy on the stage 3 tax cuts boils down to this: they're not going to do the right thing, because they promised to do the wrong thing. That's Labor's policy. They would rather turbocharge inequality—and, for that matter, gender inequality—than change their position. It's a quarter of a trillion dollars in tax cuts, three-quarters of which goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners. And twice as much of the benefit goes to men as goes to women.

If Labor had the political will, they could 'unlegislate' the legislated tax cuts. The numbers are there in this parliament—in this Senate and in the House—if Labor is prepared to do the right thing by this country, but they're not. That's why the stage 3 tax cuts are no longer the Liberals' stage 3 tax cuts. They are Labor's stage 3 tax cuts, because if they're not prepared to ditch them then they're going to have to own them.

The last six months have been interesting and embarrassing at times, but I really do think that today we've seen a new low bar set. It is just extraordinary to hear question time answers and other contributions made by those now in government where they are almost in denial of a cost-of-living crisis. The Assistant Treasurer has now declared that the RBA is going to stop raising interest rates, so the crisis is over—no need to look here! There's constant blaming, whining, carry-on, looking back to the past and passing the buck as Australians feel the pinch more and more every single day.

I think it is really time for those opposite to grow up and understand they're in government, and that that means actually making decisions that are going to be better for Australians, not worse. Obviously that memo got missed, because every single Australian, since the Albanese government has come to power, is now worse off. Stage 3 of the tax cuts that were legislated are almost at 'Voldemort status'—like the $275, 'the number that shall not be named'. They're not quite at Voldemort status but they are getting very, very close. We were told 97 times that power bills were going to go down by $275, but we know that they're going to go up, and they're probably going to go up by more than $275. So the stage 3 tax cuts are going to be required. All those tradies who are going to see, on an income of $80,000, almost $2,000 back in their pocket each year are going to need it, because their mortgages have gone up eight times since this Labor government came to power. You can compare that to the last Liberal government, when there was one increase.

We now have interest rates and a cash rate at the highest they've been in 10 years, but we're not seeing this government pull any policy levers that are moving towards reducing inflation. Every step they take, every move they make, they are making a bad situation worse—

The Police!

I think I was a bit of a lyricist there, Senator Scarr! Every time they make a decision they make the situation worse. We've got this Frankenstein energy legislation that came in last year, about which everyone, including the ACCC, has said time and time again, 'This is going to push up power prices.' Guess what, guys? That contributes to inflationary pressures, which then leads to the RBA taking action on interest rates. There is actually some rhyme and reason to why these things occur. They do follow suit.

We know the Labor Party is just obsessed with a carbon tax and it is now proposing one at three times the level that the Gillard government tried to legislate and put into place. I am just amazed that those in government are completely unaware of the impact that is going to have on businesses and on manufacturing. Look around this building. We are all sitting in a building here. It has an awful lot of concrete in it. Concrete uses a product called clinker to be produced. It is all about to go offshore because, if this carbon tax comes into play, there will be no Australian cement manufacturers. That would mean we would lose our sovereignty. We would put ourselves at risk. It's one of the most common products. It's used in every building and every road. How are you going to get over a river? That was put to me yesterday when we were looking at some of this stuff. How will you build a bridge? We know that they don't want to build some of that stuff if it's in a Liberal seat or in Mayo, but others will still want to build things. They are about to implement a carbon tax that will send all this manufacturing offshore. We are talking about hundreds of jobs that will be lost. It is going to increase the cost of absolutely everything. And that's just one industry.

We also know that this new gas supply issue is seeing investments go offshore, and there is a high likelihood we will see blackouts this year. This is something that's going to have ramifications for decades as investment is leaving this country. It is going elsewhere because those in the resources sector know that this government cannot be trusted to put policy settings in place that will allow them to safely invest in Australia and continue to grow our nation.

I am somewhat taken aback by the rhetoric of those who find themselves now in opposition. It is an urgency motion, but I note that they had a decade in office which can only be described as a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities that left Australians who now this opposition seem to think they should stand up for with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. So any claim that they make in this argument about being good managers of money and good with the economy has to be absolutely seen for what it is: an attempt to continue the con of the last 10 years.

I rise, in particular, to speak to the motion put forward by Senator Hume. Let me just say for the record that, despite the great confusion that's trying to be created and drummed up by those in opposition, our policy position hasn't changed since we arrived in government. We support responsible cost-of-living relief because Australians need that, and they need us, as their government, to respond to them.

We will focus on multinational tax avoidance in order to improve the budget bottom line and improve the outcomes for Australia, for our national economy and for the benefit of all Australians. We'll do this in a calm, measured and considered way. That is the way in which the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, has been talking to the Australian people. By his careful action, his careful words and his considered governance—not the chaos, panic, deception and lies that have been the hallmark over the last 10 years—Treasurer Chalmers has taken action to ensure that we have maintained our AAA credit rating. The rating agencies acknowledge that Labor's budget, the first one in October last year, did not add to inflation.

The Albanese government has already passed a series of measures to improve the household budgets of everyday Australians, who expect their government to respond. And that's what we've done. We've focused on responsible cost-of-living relief, and that's the kind of relief that doesn't put extra pressure on inflation. That's a really important thing. We understand that that is a critical economic indicator that we have to pay really close attention to.

The Albanese government is delivering, and will deliver, on critical things that impact people's lives in a way that will assist them to manage their budgets. There will be cheaper child care. That's happening under the Albanese government and is a cost-of-living measure that is responsible. There will be expanded paid parental leave, promised as part of our commitment leading into the election, and cheaper medicines—the most significant change in the cost of medicines in 75 years and which changes the pressure on families. We know that that's sensible assistance.

Of course, more affordable housing is also happening. My colleague Minister Collins, in the other place, is introducing legislation to fulfil our commitments on housing, because that is a massive problem that was created by 10 years of inaction by those opposite. And, of course, wage growth is happening. We're just starting to hear now that companies that refused to negotiate with unions around this country, refused to negotiate on wages, are actually coming back to the table to bargain, and wage growth will begin for Australian people.

These things matter, and they don't occur in a vacuum. Inflation is a global issue. The war in Ukraine, started by the brutal kleptocrat Vladimir Putin, has impacted supply chains right across the globe, particularly in relation to energy and food. Australians understand that we did not create those challenges but Australians also elected us to responsibly take on those challenges and address them as they present, and we are addressing those challenges.

So I stand here very proud of a sensible government committed to addressing multinational tax avoidance to improve the bottom line for Australians and to provide them with non-inflationary, best-possible help to manage their cost-of-living challenges.

I, too, rise to make a contribution in this debate on cost of living and the legislated tax cuts. I'll start from that position. These are legislated tax cuts. These are tax cuts that are in place at the moment. People are expecting them to be delivered no matter who's in power. People are expecting to keep more of their own hard-earned money no matter who is in power, and people are expecting—they're hoping—for a government that actually knows how to manage the economy and how to tackle the inflationary crisis, not one that keeps blaming solely the war in Ukraine for something that is much deeper and much more significant and embedded in the Australian economy than that.

We are currently seeing an annualised CPI of around 7.8 per cent. In my home state in the last quarter of last year, that reflected a CPI rate of 3.6 per cent in one quarter. Annualised, it's very easy to see that that's not 7.8 per cent; it's well in excess of 14 per cent. So we are in a situation where the average families out there, average mums and dads, are facing an extraordinary level of pressure on the family budget in terms of increasing petrol prices, with a 2.2 per cent rise in the December quarter, and increasing electricity prices, with an 8.6 per cent rise in the December quarter and forecast further increases this year. Health services are also going up, at 4.2 per cent per annum.

That is just the start of the pressure Australian families and Australian households are facing. That's just the start, because we've also seen the fastest cash rate rise in history. We've seen cash rates and mortgage interest rates rise at a faster rate under this government than we've ever seen before.

The track record on interest rates from the respective parties of government is pretty clear. I went through this last night, and I'll just go back to some of the key points again. Since the RBA has been publishing data, since 1990—so that's a 32-year period; that's a decent sample size, I think you'd all agree—we've seen a data set that shows us that the Labor Party has delivered the highest interest rate in that period, of 17.5 per cent compared with the coalition's highest rate of 7½ per cent. We've seen the coalition deliver average cash rates—this is not mortgage rates; this is cash rates, so add two or three per cent for your mortgage—of 3.7 per cent, whereas under Labor the average rate has been 6.2. That's 6.2 versus 3.7 over a 32-year period.

This is not just some statistical anomaly. This is not just some blip. This is the comparison of two parties of government. This is the coalition, the Liberal Party, which knows how to handle money, which knows how to manage the economy, which knows how to balance the needs of growth with the needs of what society demands of government, compared with the Labor Party, who simply does not. They're demonstrating that again now. The things they cite in this place as examples of how they're providing relief to households are quite frankly very small, help a very limited number of households and simply do not go to what people need.

People need to see a government with a plan to actually tackle the inflationary crisis that we're currently under. These are not sustainable levels of inflation, and they are actually undermining the wages of Australians. Real wage growth is plummeting. Have you noticed that those opposite never talk about real wage growth anymore? It's because they know, with inflation where it is today, we won't see real wage rises for many, many years.

The question is that the urgency motion, as moved by Senator Hume, be agreed to.

by leave—I present to the Senate a petition to fully fund Trove, the National Library of Australia's critically important online archive. It is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form. As of today this petition has over 28½ thousand signatures—that's a lot!

by leave—I present to the Senate a petition in relation to the extension of the National Home Doctor Service to daytime for the purposes of improving accessibility for disabled people. It is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form. The petition has 7,943 signatures.

r ASKEW (—) (): On behalf of the chair of the Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills, Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 1 of 2023, together with ministerial responses to committee correspondence, and I seek leave to have the chair's tabling statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The s tatement read as follows—

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2023.

The Digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced into the Parliament. Each bill is assessed against the committee's technical scrutiny principles, set out in standing order 24. These principles focus on the effect of proposed legislation on parliamentary scrutiny and individual rights, liberties and obligations.

Importantly, the committee has a strong and longstanding commitment to non-partisanship and, accordingly, the Digest does not consider the policy merits of bills.

Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2023 reports on the committee's consideration of 27 bills which were introduced into the Parliament during recent sitting weeks. It also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to 9 bills.

In this Digest, the committee has welcomed several undertakings made in response to the committee' recommendations. For instance, the Minister for Indigenous Australians has agreed to amend the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022 in response to the committee's concerns. The bill seeks to provide the Chief Executive Officer of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council with the power to delegate any or all of their functions or powers to an employee of the Council. In response to the committee's concerns about the breadth of this power and the lack of safeguards as to how it will be exercised in the bill, the Minister has advised that the bill will be amended to specify factors that the Chief Executive Officer must be satisfied an employee has before they can exercise any delegated powers, including that they have the appropriate training, qualifications, skills or experience to exercise the power.

The committee has also identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to 14 newly introduced bills.

I particularly wish to highlight the committee's comments in relation to three bills which allow significant matters to be left to delegated legislation through the inclusion of 'framework provisions'. Framework provisions contain only the broad principles of a legislative scheme and rely on delegated legislation to determine the scheme's scope and operation.

The committee has longstanding concerns with framework provisions because they considerably limit the ability of the Parliament to have appropriate oversight over new legislative schemes. As all senators are no doubt aware, a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in the form of a bill.

While it may be appropriate to include certain administrative and technical details of a framework within delegated legislation, the committee is concerned that in some cases, much of the detail of the scope and operation of new schemes is being left to delegated legislation. These are details that are often more appropriate to include in the bill itself.

In this Digest, the committee has commented on three bills that appear to contain framework provisions.

The Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 seeks to amend the Customs Act 1901to set up a framework to facilitate trials of new technology, business models and approaches in relation to Australian trade and customs practices. Many significant elements of the scope and operation of the new time-limited trial scheme are left to delegated legislation. For example, the bill provides that the Comptroller-General may determine, by legislative instrument, rules that make provision for and in relation to a controlled trial. The rules made for this purpose may establish a controlled trial, outline the period of time in which that controlled trial is in operation, and revoke a controlled trial so that it is no longer in operation.

Another bill that seeks to introduce what appear to be framework provisions is the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill proposes to amend the existing Safeguard Mechanism framework in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to allow for the creation of safeguard mechanism credit units or SMCs. Much of the detail as to how the new Safeguard Mechanism framework will operate is not set out within the bill but is instead left to delegated legislation. For example, requirements relating to review rights, the basic elements of application processes, the value of an SMC, limits or guidance on the issuing of SMCs, and guidance in relation to surrendering SMCs, is left to delegated legislation. The committee considers these elements are more appropriately characterised as part of the crediting framework and therefore it may be more appropriate to include these details within the bill itself. In any case, the explanatory memorandum for the bill does not sufficiently explain why it would not be appropriate to include this detail within the bill.

The committee's position is that significant matters should be included in primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided. Where a bill includes significant matters in delegated legislation, the committee expects the explanatory memorandum to the bill to address why it is appropriate to include the relevant matters in delegated legislation, and whether there is sufficient guidance on the face of the primary legislation to appropriately limit the matters that are being left to delegated legislation. Consequently, the committee has requested further information from the relevant minister for both of these bills.

Finally, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022 amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to establish a new legislative framework to regulate the Australian gas market. Again, the committee is concerned that some of the provisions in Schedule 1 to the bill leave significant elements of the new framework to delegated legislation. For example, who is or is not a gas market participant is to be determined by legislative instrument. This is a fundamental aspect of who is subject to the proposed scheme and yet is entirely subject to executive decision-making. The committee has noted its concerns in relation to the bill in Scrutiny Digest 1, but in light of the fact that the bill has received the Royal Assent, the committee has not made any further comment.

Importantly, and as I have already noted, the committee's concerns relate to matters of technical scrutiny and not to matters of policy.

I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis contained in the Digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2023 to the Senate.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak in relation to the scrutiny of bills report. I want to make three points in relation to the scrutiny of bills report. First, from page 10, there are multiple scrutiny issues which are reported with respect to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022. That's what happens, colleagues, when a bill is introduced in the place, as it was last December, at short notice. Members in this place only received a copy of the bill at 8.25 pm on the night before the sitting, and then it was debated in this place without the benefit of going through a scrutiny process. We are now in a situation where, in early February, for the first time, this Senate is looking at the carefully considered scrutiny issues with respect to that legislation. That is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable way to make laws in this country.

These are major issues that are raised in in report. There are principle 4, significant matters in delegation when they should have been the legislation; principle 3, broad discretionary power; section 96, Commonwealth grants to the states—and it goes on. There is the exemption from disallowance, that old bugbear that keeps coming up, yet the scrutiny issues carefully considered by the scrutiny committee are first presented in this place in February after the bill was debated in December. I've been watching the commentary from senators in this place—not necessarily of my own party, but others such as the crossbench and elsewhere—who raised surprise and concern about some of the ramifications, some of the flows of money under that legislation after it was debated and passed but before it went through about appropriate scrutiny process. It is unacceptable that that should occur with respect to such a major piece of legislation.

The second point I want to raise in relation to this digest is that we keep getting the same issues. When is there going to be change with respect so some of these fundamental scrutiny concerns? I point to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The scrutiny concerns include exemption from disallowance. Again and again bills are introduced into this place, with important regulation-making power and important instrument-delegated-legislation-making power, and they are exempt from disallowance. For those sitting in the gallery and for those listening to the debate, what does that mean? It means you have a bill passed in this place for which the minister has discretion to introduce a regulation. That goes through and, even if a majority of the senators in this place disagree with it, we've got no process to stop it. It defeats this institution as a democratic institution. We're meant to be a house of review, and yet our ability to review is gutted every time delegated legislation is made exempt from disallowance.

The point I wanted to point to in this scrutiny digest is with respect to the Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2022. A number of scrutiny concerns were raised in relation to that bill, and we're now in a situation where the bill has passed and the committee raised scrutiny concerns as to how it was calculated that the criminal penalties in a whole raft of legislation should go up by 24 per cent. The basis for that was queried by the scrutiny committee, and this is what the Attorney tells us: 'The Attorney-General also noted that the bill had already passed both houses of the parliament at the time of writing.' Isn't that wonderful? The bill goes through before fundamental scrutiny concerns are considered by senators in this place.

The scrutiny processes in this place are of the utmost importance to protect the rights and liberties of the Australian people. It's an important check and balance in our democratic process. But, if legislation is pushed through before the scrutiny process can even begin, as in the case of the gas price control legislation, or at such a pace that scrutiny concerns aren't reasonably answered and the relevant minister simply says, 'Well, the bill's been passed. What's the point?' that is unacceptable. It undermines the democratic institutions of our country and it impedes the Senate's role as an important house of review and a check and balance on the executive.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present the Delegated legislation monitorNo. 2 of 2023.

Now we want to talk about the other scrutiny committee, the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. First, I want to compliment my colleague Senator White in relation to her chairing of the committee. She does an outstanding job, an absolutely outstanding job. She is, I think, continuing the non-partisan role of that committee. Again, it's an important check and balance on the executive in relation to the—

It's coming, it's coming!

More compliments—that's all that's coming, Senator Ciccone—more compliments! So I'll take that interjection! For those listening, let me give you an example of one of the sorts of issues we grapple with. It's dealt with in this digest. This is the sort of nonsense this scrutiny committee has to put up. Legitimate scrutiny concerns were raised with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Amendment (Code of Conduct and Banning Orders) Rules 2022. Let me read paragraph 1.6 from the Delegated legislation monitor:

Section 23BE of the instrument provides that, if an investigation is undertaken in relation to compliance under section 23BD, the Commissioner may 'take any action'—

That's what it says: 'take any action'—

to deal with the outcome of an investigation that they consider appropriate.

That's the power that's invested in the commissioner. The scrutiny committee, it should not come as a surprise to any senators here, raised the obvious point that maybe 'take any action' that the commissioner considers appropriate is too wide a power. It gives him or her too great a discretion. Perhaps there should be boundaries, some guardrails, some guidance, as to what action the commissioner can or can't take. Again and again, the department resists commonsense amendments that would provide appropriate limits with respect to discretionary powers. Why do we need to continue debating these issues again and again and again? The same issues are continually arising.

The last point I want to make on this is that I do really want to compliment members of the scrutiny committee with respect to their collegiality. From time to time, we would become somewhat exasperated with the views of departments when they write back consistently in the terms in which they do. It reminded me of an essay written by Max Weber, a European social democrat. I would be disappointed if any on the opposite benches haven't heard of Max Weber, a very famous German social democrat. He wrote an essay called Politics as a Vocation, which was published in 1919. The is the last paragraph:.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

He's not talking about 'boring' as in a speech like mine! He's talking about strong and slow boring, as in drilling, through hard boards. He goes on:

It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible.

Is it impossible that we will actually get a regulation or a bill presented to the Senate which doesn't trigger a fundamental scrutiny concern? Is it possible that our words will actually be heard somewhere in the depths of the bureaucracy. Again and again we get legislation that is infested with exemptions from disallowance, with inappropriate discretionary powers and with a lack of checks and balances on the executive. We can only hope, and we can only seek guidance from those such as Max Weber in terms of his encouragement to keep on boring.

Question agreed to.

Some very wise words there by Senator Scarr. I'm sure Senator Carr would be very proud of what you had to say today, given his longstanding contribution on such matters.

On a different note, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee entitled National Emergency (2022 New South Wales Floods) Declaration 2022 together with the accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

And I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

As deputy chair of the committee I am going to make a few comments in relation to the report. Can I compliment Senator Green in relation to her chairing of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. There are serious issues of scrutiny in relation to the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 in relation to issues relating to temporal proportionality with respect to declarations of emergency, the scope and proportionality of ministerial determinations and a number of other matters. Those are detailed in the report. There was a previous committee report in relation to this legislation where comments were made by members of the Labor Party, then in opposition, the Greens and also coalition members. I've spoken about these issues quite widely. Senator Ciccone referred to Senator Carr, and Senator Carr and I were of exactly the same mind in relation to these issues—that any legislation dealing with declarations of emergency needs to be carefully considered and have appropriate checks and balances, and that includes oversight of executive determinations. This place, the Senate, also has a role of oversight in that regard. I wholeheartedly support this report and compliment all the members of the committee with respect to their diligence in relation to its preparation.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Budget Process Operational Rules and the National Reconstruction Fund.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

Today, I will be introducing three Bills:

This package of bills supports the implementation of the 2021-22 Budget measure, Modernising and Improving the Private Health Insurance Prostheses List.

This first tranche of legislative changes is required to fully implement measures that will support, modernise and improve the Private Health Insurance Prostheses List, which will now be known as the Prescribed List.

The first Bill I am introducing is the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022.

The measures in this Bill are important as they will broadly support further reform activity aimed at keeping downward pressure on private health insurance premiums by reducing the costs associated with medical devices and human tissue products. This will be achieved by modernising administrative processes and cost recovery arrangements which will improve the affordability and attractiveness of private health insurance for consumers. This is good news for privately insured Australians who paid around $26 billion dollars in premiums in the year ending 30 June 2022.

The Australian health system operates under a mixed model of private and public health care, with private hospitals and private health insurers playing critical roles. Australian consumers with private health insurance may choose to receive treatment as private patients in either private or public hospitals.

For privately insured patients with eligible health cover, private health insurers are required to pay set benefits for certain kinds of devices and products. Expenditure on medical devices and human tissue products accounts for around 14 per cent of the private health insurance benefits paid annually. It is therefore important that Australians continue to receive value for money for their private health insurance, including when it comes to treatment with medical devices and human tissue products.

Under these measures, there would be no additional out-of-pocket costs for consumers on an ongoing basis. The measures will also benefit consumers by supporting access to innovative medical devices and technology on the Prescribed List.

The government recognises the important role medical devices and human tissue products play in the overall health of Australian patients.

This Bill will provide greater clarity about the kinds of products intended to be accessed through this system. The measures will ensure not only certainty about the benefits that are reimbursed but that they are cost effective. This will provide increased transparency for the medical technology industry, hospitals, clinicians, private health insurers and consumers.

The Bill also renames the relevant legislative instrument that may specify the benefits for these devices and products. The new name will be the Private Health Insurance (Medical Devices and Human Tissue Products) Rules. This new name reflects the clarified scope of medical devices and human tissue products for which private health insurers must pay set benefits.

The Bill also updates the cost recovery arrangements by introducing a fee for service-based approach, where the fees paid by medical device sponsors to list their products reflect the effort required to assess the application.

These arrangements will support a predictable environment in which sponsors can have the confidence to continue to provide medical devices and human tissue products to Australians while also maintaining a stable, sustainable, and innovative industry sector.

Importantly, the Bill does not affect clinician or patient choice in the private health system, and it does not affect access to medical devices or human tissue products.

Overall, the Bill supports the government's priorities of ensuring that people can access affordable treatments, and that the Australians with private health insurance get value for money.

The second Bill I am introducing is the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022.

This Bill amends the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Act 2007 to update cost recovery arrangements.

The Bill provides for levies payable by medical technology sponsors for the listing of medical devices and human tissue products on the Prescribed List. These levies will be amended to reflect the costs of the ongoing management of the updated Prescribed List.

Over time, the levies will also include the costs of new post-listing review and compliance framework activities. These new arrangements will be consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. This framework requires that non-government entities using the Prescribed List services pay the minimum efficient costs of regulation.

This will allow my department to administer listing in a financially sustainable manner.

The amounts of these levies will be set out in regulations, and details for the collection and liability for these levies will be set out in other legislative instruments.

This Bill complements the first Bill that I introduced today.

The third Bill I am introducing is the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022.

The Bill amends the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Act 2009 to reflect the new name of the relevant legislative instrument that may be made under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 for medical devices and human tissue products.

The new name of the legislative instrument is in the first Bill that I introduced today, namely, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Medical Device List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022.

A measure in this Bill also rectifies an incorrect reference to a Ministerial determination in the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Act 2009.

The measures in this Bill do not change any current requirements or obligations which enable the funding of our world renowned National Joint Replacement Register through an industry levy.

Debate adjourned.

Before moving business of the Senate notice of motion No. 7, I ask that the name of Senator McKim be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator McKim, move:

That the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022, made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, be disallowed [F2022L01162].

The last time the Senate considered a motion to disallow these regulations, the Greens did not support that motion. As we said at the time, this was not to be interpreted as the Greens endorsing the new government's regulations. Our view is, and was at the time, that the previous government's regulations are no good, but the new government's regulations are not much better. In particular, neither the previous government's regulations nor the new government's regulations include dividends or other flows of money for profit within the scope of reportable transactions.

From the outset, the Greens have stepped back and asked this: what would be most useful for superannuation transparency? We spoke to super funds, we spoke to consumer groups and we asked questions of regulators. We've been constructive, and we've done the heavy lifting on this issue. Really, we've done the government's job for it, because the minister didn't do much of a job of explaining the shortcomings of the old regulations when he sought to strike them out, and he didn't propose a solution that put the issue to bed. That left plenty of room for the opposition to attack. It also left plenty of room for Senator David Pocock, who, I have to say, slightly disappointingly took context-free numbers out of annual reports to try and wedge the Greens, which actually had the effect of highlighting the problem, with a binary choice between the old regulations and the new regulations.

To date, the debate about this issue has been superficial and at a volume far in excess of its importance. So, yes, let's have superannuation transparency and let's get it right, but to say that disallowing these regulations would be a big win for transparency, as Senator David Pocock did today, is just not right. We're not going to resolve these issues here today, even though the solution is actually very straightforward. We need an annual super transparency report. It needs to be published by the regulator, APRA, and it needs to include tables of all the relevant expenditure—including for political purposes and for profit—for all super funds in the one place so that consumers of superannuation products can make comparisons across funds and so that other people, including journalists, can easily make those comparisons.

In good faith, the Greens have given the minister the time to put in place this proper solution while this disallowance motion and a motion tabled by the Greens remained on the Notice Paper. I'm here today to say that the time is up, and the minister hasn't sorted this issue out. We haven't seen new regulations that would provide a holistic fix. Instead, what I have is the minister's word that he intends to do so, which brings me to another issue.

As we all know, late last year, the minister reached an agreement with the Greens to include within the financial accountability regime fines for executives who breach their accountability obligations. We had an agreement that that would occur, but within 24 hours of that agreement being made public, the minister reneged. After a day of very overt and, I have to say, shameless lobbying by the banks, the minister went back on his word. I say to the minister today that there need to be consequences for this. If the government expects the Greens to be reasonable, then the government needs to demonstrate that we can work with it in good faith. They need to do better than just roll over to the banks.

Last week we found out that the major banks donated over $400,000 to the Labor Party during an election year. When the minister folded on including million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers in a bill that was supposed to be all about stopping bankers who get paid millions of dollars for being dodgy, that was the banks calling in a favour owed. It was institutionalised bribery, but it was out in plain view—out in the open for the whole world to see—and that's the way the banks wanted it. They wanted to send a message to this parliament that actually they are running the show in here, not the democratically elected senators. It was a shameless and overt display of power that was designed specifically to send a direct message to this parliament and, in particular, to the MPs who are members of a party once led by Ben Chifley.

The message to Labor MPs from the banks was this: if you're thinking about curbing bankers' powers or tilting the scales in favour of consumers, then think again because we, the banks, have you, the Labor Party, on a very short leash. This is the question that I now put to the minister and the government: what is more important, donations from the banks and doing as instructed by the banks, on the one hand, or doing the right thing by the Australian public and consumers of banking products, on the other hand? If the government wants to be confident of the Greens' vote and support on matters like this, in this place, then the government will need to do better than be patsies for the banks, and the government will need to make it very clear and demonstrate that we can work with the government in good faith.

In case anything I've said is unclear, I'll finish with this. The way that I would suggest the government and the minister demonstrate that they can work with the Greens in good faith is to come good on what they already agreed to, which is to include million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers in the financial accountability regime. The Greens will be supporting this disallowance motion.

I'm pleased to be able to make a brief contribution here on this important matter. This all predates this parliament. It goes back to the last parliament, when the former government sought to enact laws that would make the super funds work in the interests of their workers and members, rather than work for their vested interests that own the trusts. That has been necessary because the funds collect over $30 billion a year in fees. They are guaranteed to get this money. They open the door, the money falls in and they take the high fees.

One of the things that they have done, over the long term, has been to pilfer and find other ways of transferring moneys into their favourite related parties. If you're a bank fund, you find ways to send money to the bank. If you're an industry fund, you find ways to send money off to your favourite employer group or union. The reason we enacted a regulation after we passed the enabling law, which was opposed by the Labor Party—they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a structural reform that would have made the funds work for the workers. The regulation required all of these funds to disclose all of their related party payments.

That was perfectly reasonable. No consumer group was unhappy. No third party could be found that was unhappy with that level of transparency. But the first order of business for the new minister in the government for vested interests, Mr Stephen Jones, was to remove that transparency by making a regulation, late on a Friday afternoon, back in September. This followed the exposure draft of an identical regulation—

Senator Bragg, I have Senator Ciccone on his feet.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought that the honourable senator referred to the minister by an incorrect title. I ask that he refer to the minister by his correct title.

I ask the senator to do so.

I will, certainly. This follows an exposure draft regulation that was provided for comment in July. This was the first act of this new minister, after having won the election. That regulation proposed to gut the transparency, to remove it, so workers could no longer see when their funds were sending money off to the union or bank. So they had a consultation. The FOIs revealed they only had a very targeted consultation with one organisation, the industry funds association, and they came back in September and made the regulation.

The substantial change in this regulation is very simple. Before this regulation was made, you could look at your annual member statement and see that this super fund had paid X dollars to X union. You could see that the first super fund had paid $1 million to CFMMEU. But that was all removed by Minister Jones's regulation.

Then you fast forward through a lot of extensive discussion, led by the crossbench in many ways, and we get to last week. The Australian Electoral Commission come along, and they decide they will release their annual data. In that release they provide the information that Minister Jones has covered up from the workers. So the AEC shows the enormous flow of money from the super funds to the unions of $14 million or $15 million a year ballooning to $30 million by the end of the decade. That's $30 million of retirement savings being sent off to the unions for non-commercial purposes and unknown purposes, which is very, very troubling.

In this fantastic release of data from the Australian Electoral Commission, we find that one fund in particular has been very generous in its payments, and that fund is called FIRST Super. It's rather a small fund. In the last financial year they provided a payment of $2.5 million to the CFMMEU. That's a tiny fund sending that money off to that union. We only know that information because of the AEC. Surely this information is of great interest to the public. I have to say, I'd be very surprised if many members of the public trawl through the AEC disclosures, but I'm certain that many members, many workers, would be very interested and would actually open their member's statement that they receive in the mail each year.

I don't want to detain the Senate for too long, but the substantial points are that we enacted a set of laws and regulations which guaranteed that workers could see where their superannuation money was going, because it's a compulsory scheme and it's the least we can do. The Labor government came in—the government for vested interests—and they worked through the list of grievances and rubbish that had been churned out by their favourite vested interests of the class action law firms, the unions and the super funds. Order No. 1 was to gut the transparency from the super laws, and that's what Minister Jones did. He put it out as an exposure draft, he made no changes and then he made the regulation in September. Then of course, last week, the AEC made an absolute mess of the minister's policy by showing that this very significant sum of money would be disclosed elsewhere.

So here we are back at the Senate, and, before finishing, I just wanted to say that I think the crossbench have done a really great job here in putting this forward. Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock in particular, but also Senator McKim, have all played a really constructive role. It's kind of unbelievable that it has taken so long for the Senate to stand up for transparency in a system that this parliament has put in place. This system only exists because of Canberra. We force 10 per cent of people's wages and salaries into these schemes; the least we can do is show these people where their money is going, and I very much welcome the impending division on this matter.

Thank you to Senator Lambie and Senator McKim for lodging this disallowance. It's regrettable that it has taken so long to come to a vote. It would have been much better for everyone who has superannuation, which is most people in Australia, had this happened before the member statements were due last year. We would have been able to see where all this money went, as Senator Bragg pointed out. But we finally got there. Senator McKim has ummed and ahhed for a while and finally wants to send the government back to the drawing board to put transparency at the core of superannuation disclosures. Members absolutely have a right to know where their money is going and how their funds are spending their money. After this disallowance, I encourage the Assistant Treasurer to ensure that any new regulations do just that, because, as we've heard today from all sides of this Senate, Australians want more transparency. They are demanding more transparency. And it's on us to ensure that the government delivers that.

At the outset, I really want to convey my regard for the work that Senator David Pocock, Senator Lambie and Senator McKim have done with respect to this matter. This is good stuff. This is what we're meant to be here for. It's a really positive note to end what has been a lengthy day of proceedings.

I'll just make two other quick points. First, for goodness sake, Government! If you are going to do something like this, introduce a regulation like this, don't insult our intelligence. The most flimsy arguments were put up by the government to support this regulation. I can tell you, as someone who served as a company secretary of an ASX company for 12 years, the argument about the cost of compliance imposed on multi-billion dollar organisations that have actual obligations to keep accounts and records was one of the flimsiest arguments I've seen put forward to defeat the principle of transparency. The members have a right to know where their money is going. The members have a right to know where their money is going because, after all, it is their money. So one dearly hopes that a lesson has been learned from this debacle from the government's perspective and we won't see a repeat.

The only other point I want to make is once again to put on the record, as I've previously done in this place, that when Senator McKim came into this place and said he believed, in his view, a deal had been done, I took that at face value. Hopefully those in government might reflect on the results of what has unfolded from what can only be described as a debacle, to be frank. It is a shame it's taken this long to get to this stage, but it's good we got here. Congratulations, Senator Lambie, Senator Pocock and Senator McKim. This is a good result. This is good stuff.

Very briefly, I would like to just echo the sentiments of my coalition Senate colleagues and recognise, like others, that this is an example of the Senate operating at its best, with non-government senators working across the chamber to bring integrity and transparency when the government chooses not to.

In reflecting on Senator Scarr's remarks, I reflect on that wonderful quote from Edmund Burke, who said, 'Sometimes our patience will achieve more than our force.' So I would like to reiterate that the Albanese Labor government tried to reverse a requirement for super funds to disclose how they spend super members' funds on sponsorships and payments—no line items, no transparency and no accountability. These payments from super funds are for things such as $1 million footy sponsorships, corporate boxes, union kickbacks and lobbying. Australians deserve to know how their retirement savings are being spent. The changes that the government wanted to pursue go against recommendations from the Productivity Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. If we want to have a serious conversation about transparency for a $3 trillion industry it shouldn't start with supporting the winding back of measures designed to let the sunlight in. All of those senators that have been elected on a platform of integrity must support this disallowance.

Going back to where I started, it is great to see non-government senators being able to work in such a cooperative manner to bring real benefits to Australians. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Albanese government is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system, and these regulations clean up red tape to ensure that members can access meaningful, useful information about how their money is being spent, not pages and pages of minutiae. We remain committed to working with senators and members to improve reporting so that members have better insights into their retirement savings.

In addition to these regulations, the government will deliver an annual superannuation transparency report to hold trustees to account. Furthermore, we have legislation before the parliament to require superannuation entities to prepare and lodge annual financial reports with ASIC, aligning their reporting obligations with those for publicly listed companies and registered schemes. The regulations introduced by the previous government were an ideologically motivated make-work exercise and did nothing to improve the outcomes for super members.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to. As a division is required and it's past 4.30, the division will be held tomorrow. The debate is adjourned.

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1810:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), before "The provisions of this Act", insert "(1)":

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 16), at the end of section 5AB, add.

(2) However, the effect of subsection (1) is to be disregarded in applying the provisions of this Act and the regulations for the purposes of doing a thing with respect to a New Zealand citizen and a special category visa (including the granting of such a visa to a New Zealand citizen).

(3) In this section:

do a thing includes:

(a) make a decision (however described); and

(b) exercise a power, perform a function, comply with an obligation or discharge a duty; and

(c) do anything else.

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 31), at the end of the item, add:

(6) Despite subitems (1) to (5), this item does not apply in relation to a thing done, or purported to be done, with respect to a New Zealand citizen and a special category visa (including the granting of such a visa to a New Zealand citizen).

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Thank you, Senator Lambie, for talking to us about these amendments. We note your amendments, but the government will not be supporting them.

The Albanese government is taking a commonsense approach to visa cancellations, placing a priority on keeping the Australian people safe. This is a reasoned approach that appropriately deals with cancellation considerations for those who have lived almost their entire lives in Australia, which for some includes their formative years. The department will now also, importantly, consider the impact that a visa cancellation may have on children in Australia, and the limited connection that some may have to their country of citizenship. Where individuals pose a significant risk to the community, the Australian government will continue to cancel their visas and remove them. What we are looking at now is a commonsense approach for dealing with cancellation considerations for those who have lived almost their entire lives in Australia and who have limited connection to their country of citizenship. The new New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Hipkins, has praised the Australian government for prioritising a commonsense approach.

As I've said previously, the Australian community has a reasonable expectation that noncitizens who seek to enter or remain in Australia are of good character and are law-abiding. Similarly, they expect any noncitizens who are not of good character to be refused a visa, or have any visa they hold cancelled. This bill does not change the framework within which the character test operates. Many of the other points I was going to make I have made already, so for those reasons we will be opposing the amendments moved by Senators Lambie and Tyrell.

I just want to make this quite clear for those who are not quite sure what our amendments are. Our amendments make an exception for New Zealanders who have a special category visa. Anyone on a special category visa will not be subject to visa cancellation under this amended power. The minister says this is a simple bill, and so are these amendments. I've said it before: we need to protect our Anzacs. The minister said earlier that New Zealanders living in this country can get their visas cancelled on character grounds and he said they have an option to appeal that decision. How long do they get before they're deported? How do they get access to a lawyer? Why should they be cancelled at all?

What if they were brought here as a kid and have lived here for the last 30 years? They're not technically our citizens but they didn't become criminals on New Zealand's watch, it was on ours. We have a special bond with New Zealand and that's already recognised in our Migration Act. We should also treat our New Zealand neighbours with respect. The government talks up how we shouldn't worry about this bill, that it just returns things to how they used to be. But how things used to be was pretty ordinary, and now is the chance not just to take things back to how they used to be but to make them better than before. That's what we're supposed to do here, after all: if we can make something better then we do that. And if it means that we can have better diplomatic relations, especially with our Anzac counterparts, then we need to move heaven and earth to make sure those remain.

New Zealanders on a subclass 44 visa are often Australians in every way except for their citizenship status. They're part of our community, they've lived here for their whole lives and now they're are at risk of being sent to a country that they don't know from a bar of soap. This amendment to the bill stops that from happening. It's just common sense and it's good political relations with our New Zealander counterparts.

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to. A division having been called and it being after 6.30, that will come forward for a division tomorrow.

(Quorum formed).

I move the amendment standing in my name and in the name of the Australian Greens on Sheet 1809:

(1) Page 7 (after line 33), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds

Migration Act 1958

1 Subsection 501(2)

Omit "The Minister may", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the Minister may".

2 Subsection 501(3)

Omit "The Minister may", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the Minister may".

3 Subsection 501(3A)

Omit "The Minister must", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the Minister must".

4 After subsection 501(5)

Insert:

(5A) The Minister may not, under this section, cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the person:

(a) has resided in Australia for a continuous period of at least 10 years; or

(b) arrived in Australia from overseas when the person was less than 10 years old.

5 After subsection 501(6)

Insert:

(6A) Conduct that was engaged in by a person when the person was less than 18 years old must not be taken into account in determining whether the person passes the character test.

This amendment will ensure children and people who for all intents and purposes are Australian cannot have their visas cancelled on character grounds. This amendment will achieve this aim by legislating that no-one who has lived in Australia for more than 10 years, was under the age of 10 when they migrated to Australia, arrived in Australia before the age of 10 or was under the age of 18 when they offended can have their visa cancelled on character grounds.

These new laws have led to thousands of people—over 6½ thousand since the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 was enacted—many who've lived most of their lives in Australia, having their visas cancelled. They've often been cancelled for minor offences like drink driving and after they have paid the penalty for those offences as imposed by the courts. These people often have histories of trauma or of disability. They are often refugees or stateless people. They are then sent either into detention or to countries they do not know and where they have no family or social support networks. These are punishments—for entire families, sometimes—that are unjust, that don't fit the crime and, frankly, that are un-Australian.

The character test laws have seen a disproportionate amount of New Zealanders deported from Australia. Close to 3,000 New Zealanders have been deported on character grounds within the last decade, when former immigration minister and now opposition leader, Mr Dutton, significantly broadened the scope of the character test under section 501 and introduced mandatory visa cancellations under section 501(3A). This is well over a third—in fact, it's nearly half—of all section 501 deportations to New Zealand.

Up until 1998, when the Howard government introduced a character test into section 501 of the Migration Act, any migrant who had spent 10 years or more in Australia was protected from deportation. A similar system that recognises time spent living in the country still operates to this very day in New Zealand. As former New Zealand prime minister Ms Ardern told former Prime Minister Morrison during her trip to Australia in 2019, while expressing what she described as her concern and disappointment with Australia's visa cancellations policy:

We have seen cases where there is almost no connection of an individual to New Zealand who has been deported … There are some examples that will not make any sense to a fair-minded person … I consider that to be a corrosive part of that policy. And it's having a corrosive effect on our relationship.

Colleagues, let's be clear about this: this is having a corrosive effect om Australia's relationship with New Zealand. New Zealand shares many, many cultural attributes with Australia. Many Australians would describe New Zealand as a sibling country to Australia, and yet, according to Ms Ardern, these matters are having a corrosive effect on our relationship. Prime Minister Ardern finished her comments with a request for Australia to 'send back Kiwis—genuine Kiwis—but do not deport your people and your problems.' With this amendment, that is exactly what we are attempting to address, and we call on the government to support it.

The Greens have moved a series of amendments that have previously been moved to this bill. The Australian community, as I've said throughout this debate, has a reasonable expectation that noncitizens who seek to enter or remain in Australia are of good character and are law-abiding. Similarly, they expect any noncitizens who are not of good character to be refused a visa or have any visa they hold cancelled. This bill does not change the framework within which the character test operates. It allows for the continued effective administration of the powers in the Migration Act by ensuring aggregate sentences are considered sentences, thereby restoring the ability to rely on substantial criminal record as an objective measure for the purpose of the character test. This government is taking urgent commonsense action in order to keep our community safe. We're not here to debate the broader character framework; we're here to clarify the powers in the Migration Act. For those reasons the government will be opposing the amendment moved by the Greens.

The question is that the amendment by the Australian Greens on sheet 1809 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1811:

(1) Page 7 (after line 33), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Character test

Migration Act 1958

1 After subsection 501(7)

Insert:

(7AA) Paragraphs (7)(c) and (d) do not apply in relation to the following:

(a) a person for whom a protection finding within the meaning of subsections 197C(4) to (7) has been made;

(b) a person in respect of whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations;

(c) a person who is stateless;

(d) a person who has arrived in Australia and has been granted a visa on humanitarian grounds.

Whilst I agree with what the minister is saying about the expectation of Australians, I do think that in this debate we need to be able to talk about getting that balance right. From reading this legislation, I wholeheartedly agree that the Australian community should be protected from people who have committed serious crimes, but, when we're dealing with a person who is a refugee or a stateless person, they don't have anywhere else to go, and indefinite immigration detention seems like a very heavy penalty for a crime that carries a 12-month sentence. Does the government have a plan to make sure that we aren't locking people up for years and years should their sentence come to 12 months?

As I think you're aware, the government notes your amendments but will not be supporting them. I understand Minister Giles's office has had some engage with you about these issues already, and Minister Giles is certainly happy to engage with you separately on this bill as to how Australia can meet our international obligations in the way that you're seeking while maintaining the safety of the community. As I've said a number of times, this bill doesn't change the framework within which the character test operates. It really is a matter of clarifying powers which were always believed to exist in the Migration Act until that recent court decision. But we are happy to have some further engagement with you about this.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. A division is required. It being after 6.30, the division will be held tomorrow.

Progress reported.

L (—) (): I rise tonight with a very heavy heart to pay tribute to a very beautiful woman, Nessa Delaney. Nessa was the wife of the former Irish Ambassador to Australia and New Zealand, Mr Noel White, who was in that role from 2012 until 2016. I'd like to acknowledge the presence here tonight of the current Irish ambassador, Mr Tim Mawe, and his wife, Trish, to pay their respects to Nessa Delaney. Sadly, Nessa passed away on Sunday 30 October 1922 at Dublin's Blackrock Clinic at the age of 58 after a very long battle with cancer. In his eulogy at her funeral mass in Ireland, Noel told the congregation that Nessa favoured brevity in public speaking, and I will do my best to live up to her standards.

Nessa's own extremely impressive career included time as a senior official in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, serving in Dublin, Ottawa and Paris. She also served for many years in a senior capacity at the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels. I recall a terrific visit with Nessa and Noel in Brussels. We stayed at the Irish embassy and were given a personal tour of the site of the Battle of Waterloo before a wander through the magnificent chocolate shops in Brussels.

At her funeral in Ireland recently, Noel spoke of the many tributes to Nessa that poured in from around the world. Many of those tributes to which he referred came from here in Australia, and rightly so. Listening to Senator O'Neill's tribute to Nessa last night, I was reminded that Australia has benefited over the years from the enormous contribution to the nation from Irish people, particularly Irish women. Nessa Delaney embodied that tradition. It's no surprise that Nessa shared a friendship based on mutual respect with another great Australian, fiercely proud of her own Irish heritage and well-known in this parliament—our friend and former colleague the late Susan Ryan.

Nessa Delaney engaged with this country—its history, its landscape, its arts and its culture. She was curious about Australia and fascinated by it. Nessa loved its people, its cultural and artistic heritage, and the natural environment. She revelled in what she once described as the 'shimmering emptiness of the Hay Plains' as she and her family—her husband, three boys and a dog—undertook the long road trip from the ACT to South Australia.

Nessa loved South Australia, and in the past my wife and I were very pleased to host Nessa and Noel at our vineyard in the Clare Valley—of course named after that famous Irish county. Nessa was particularly inspired by our Jesuit neighbours in the Seven Hills Monastery, and by the deeply spiritual cottage where Mother Mary MacKillop, Australia's only saint, once resided.

Nessa was a loving and much-loved wife and mother. During a recent trip to Europe, I was able to offer my condolences in person to Noel and the boys: Daniel, Joseph and Patrick. It's also appropriate that we pay tribute in this place and that we acknowledge her contribution to Australia and to Ireland's relations with Australia.

We are deeply saddened by Nessa Delaney's untimely departure from this life. Her death has deprived her family of a loving wife and mother. It has deprived Ireland and Europe of a dedicated public servant and Australia of a great friend. I offer my deepest condolences to Nessa's extended family, especially to her sister-in-law, Mary White, who is an intensivist at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and to her family, as well as to all of Nessa's friends and all of those who knew her. May she now rest in peace.

Towards the end of last year I welcomed the opportunity to join the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong; the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Mr Conroy; and the shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, Mr McCormack, on a bipartisan delegation to the Pacific. In international affairs, Australia is at its strongest when we speak with one voice, and the bipartisan delegation to three Pacific island nations was a tangible demonstration that Australia's friendship with Pacific island nations transcends domestic politics.

We visited Vanuatu, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. It was the first bipartisan visit to Pacific island countries since 2019, when such visits were disrupted, particularly by COVID. I welcome very much the resumption of those visits and I acknowledge and thank Senator Wong for the invitation to participate in them. I place on record particular thanks to all of the leaders—political, traditional and community—who we met with during our visit. I particularly acknowledge the work of leaders across nations for their partnership across the Pacific islands and note that that partnership is continuing to yield more dividends and success, with their individual and collective efforts helping in part to secure the return of Kiribati to the Pacific Islands Forum, which occurred shortly after our visit and has been, I know, an effort of many Pacific island leaders. As we all know, our region faces increased geostrategic pressure, and a united Pacific Islands Forum and family of nations is crucial to ensuring stability within our region and the resilience to withstand other pressures.

It was particularly pleasing to be in Vanuatu for the signing of the bilateral security agreement, the culmination of work which was instigated during the prime ministership of Mr Turnbull in 2018. The agreement, signed by Prime Minister Kalsakau of Vanuatu and Minister Wong, reaffirms Vanuatu's commitment to Australia as its principal security partner. Our delegation participated in activities reflecting our deep partnership with Vanuatu, from contributing to environmental rehabilitation with mangrove plantings to opening a renewed wharf, inspecting a new police vessel and discussing Pacific labour mobility in Vanuatu's largest village, Mele. We also had the honour of meeting Gloria Julia King, a new member of Vanuatu's parliament and the first woman elected in 14 years. She is doing incredible work in providing new, thoughtful and powerful leadership and, I hope, inspiring many other women to follow in her footsteps in Vanuatu and elsewhere across the Pacific.

In the Federated States of Micronesia, we marked 35 years of diplomatic relations between our countries. Our engagement with President Panuelo highlighted how he is a key leader with a strong commitment to the security and stability of the Pacific. It was a delight also to see Australia's education and health projects changing lives for the better at the Ohmine Elementary School, where our delegation was given a maths lesson by some of the students.

In Palau, Minister Wong and I were present for the official launch of a new e-health system being provided with Australian support. We also visited the massive construction of a solar farm supported by the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. These are practical demonstrations of Australia's friendship and commitment to Palau, and I thank President Whipps and his ministers for their generosity with their time with our delegation.

Last month I visited Papua New Guinea as part of a separate cross-parliamentary delegation, visiting Port Moresby and nearby towns Kuriva, Kerea and Pari as well as Goroka and Asaro. Australia is PNG's largest trade and investment partner, and PNG is the largest destination for Australian development assistance. As we are the closest of neighbours and the deepest of partners, this visit was an invaluable opportunity—my first as shadow minister for foreign affairs—to better understand the relationship between our nations and how we can secure the best outcomes for our work together.

I particularly thank the Pacific Friends of Global Health and Save the Children for their support in undertaking this visit. Our delegation's engagements spanned issues including maternal health, family and sexual violence, water safety and the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis, malaria and HIV. I pay tribute to the health and community workers whose constant and tireless efforts are making a difference, but equally I acknowledge that there is a need for continued support, continued vigilance and new effort to ensure the effectiveness of programs that can and will save lives, especially those of children and women across Papua New Guinea, and help to lift their development standards and progress.

My previous visit to Papua New Guinea had been as trade minister, and it was a very welcome opportunity on this visit to engage with Papua New Guinea's new foreign minister, their deputy prime minister and other senior leaders and to discuss other aspects of our economic and security ties. The Pacific is a region we share, and together we all play an important role in its security and prosperity. I thank those who helped facilitate these visits, and, on behalf of the opposition, I pledge our continued friendship and support to all Pacific island nations.

I rise this evening to mark a momentous point in South Australian history, with my great state set to become the first Australian jurisdiction with a First Nations voice to parliament. The Malinauskas Labor government this week introduced the First Nations Voice Bill 2023. I am deeply proud to be a South Australian and see that occur.

This bill is the result of years of hard work and advocacy by the Indigenous community of South Australia, including my good friend Kyam Maher, the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney-General, who has worked tirelessly to progress the issues around truth, treaty and voice for over 20 years. This South Australian bill presents a major step forward in acknowledging and recognising the unique and important place that First Nations people have in our society. Policies and services for First Nations people and communities will only ever work and will only ever give us the outcomes that we require when those First Nations people have a say in those matters. The introduction of this bill is not only significant for First Nations people; it is for all of us. It sends a powerful message to the rest of Australia and to the world. By taking this step, South Australia is setting that positive example for the rest of the country and showing that it's committed to creating a more inclusive and just society.

As a nation, we have an opportunity to progress voice, treaty and truth simultaneously. All three require dedicated action, and there is no need to choose one over the other. This year we will all, across the whole of this country, have a choice to vote yes on the federal Voice to Parliament referendum, a powerful step towards reconciliation. It will be a clear statement that we as a nation are committed to acknowledging and addressing the injustices of the past and creating a more equal and inclusive future.

Constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament, with a body enshrined in the Constitution, would enable First Nations people to have their voices heard and their perspectives considered in the decisions that affect their lives. That has to make a difference—a difference that we must see in how our society operates in the future. To quote my colleague Senator Dodson, 'Why shouldn't First Nations people secure a formal structure through which to provide advice to the parliament and the government on matters which affect them?' When you put it like that, it really does seem like a very simple and very essential question. I ask, why shouldn't they?

What an honour it was at the Chifley conference on the weekend to listen to Senator Dodson and his speech highlighting the progress of the Voice to Parliament referendum and the importance of its success in unifying the nation and his lesson in history of the pathway to get to where we are today in terms of that recognition, which started in 1937. I would highly recommend anyone who gets the opportunity to read that speech. It's well worth a go. His powerful speech served as a reminder of the significance of the referendum and the need for Australians to respond generously to the Uluru Statement from the Heart requests. A successful referendum will signal a new and unifying era for Australia. For many this has been a decades-long mission of reconciliation, and, for all, it's been hundreds of years of injustice. With the continued struggles faced by First Nations communities, including poverty, high incarceration rates and child removals, it has never been more urgent that we take this critical step.

I salute my South Australian Labor colleagues for the actions they have taken this week. Kyam and the rest of the Malinauskas government, each and every one of you are setting an example for the rest of the country. It's time for the rest of Australia to see that this is doable and essential and to get it done and follow. Let us work together towards reconciliation. Let us show the world that we are a nation that values inclusiveness and equality, and let us respond generously to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. (Time expired)

Just recently, Vaughan Gregory Johnson passed away, and I wanted to read the Vale to Vaughan as published by the Queensland Trucking Association on 24 January this year:

On Sunday, 22 January, we received the tragic news that a great friend and supporter of the road freight transport industry, Vaughan Johnson OAM had passed away. Vaughan was certainly character and on occasions could be controversial but was authentic in every way and enjoyed many friendships across the parliament and Queensland generally.

He was born on 20 July 1947 in Bourke, New South Wales, but before long his family had moved to Quilpie where he established his political career on the local council before winning the seat of Gregory in late 1989. Vaughan's first speech to parliament was on the 7 March 1990 where from the outset he set out his purpose to represent the best interests of country and regional Queensland.

When Rob Borbidge became Premier in 1996, Vaughan was appointed Minister for Transport and Main Roads on 26 February 1996 and he set about his ministerial task with great enthusiasm. A feature of his time as minister was the passage of legislation to adopt speed cameras in Queensland which was assented to on 9 December 1996. Vaughan's leadership and enthusiasm in road safety paved the way to launch the very successful Campaign 300 along with the Fatal 4 message which was a fully integrated campaign with the Queensland Police Service, media outlets, local government and many key stakeholders. These reforms had an extraordinary result for Queensland road safety as the road toll reduced from 385 in 1996 to 279 by 1998 the lowest toll in 35 years at the time.

In June 1998 Vaughan returned to the backbench after the Borbidge government lost the election and he undertook a number of roles over the years as the opposition spokesperson in several different portfolios. Other key achievements in his political career were being appointed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from March 2001 to February 2003 and being the Government Whip during the Newman government. He retired from the Queensland parliament in 2015 and in 2020 he was awarded a medal of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day honours list.

On a personal level and as an industry we enjoyed a great friendship with Vaughan for almost 30 years. Many of us shared trips and social occasions where the subject was almost always centred around country Queensland. As a friend or as your boss (as a minister) or when briefing him on an industry issue he was unfailingly respectful and principled in his approach. He was a diligent and committed supporter who always made himself available and did his best as a champion of the bush. His word was a bond he would not break, was great company and he was as reliable as the sunrise to be persistent in any cause he pursued. What more could you ask for.

We are deeply saddened and pass on our thoughts and condolences to his family.

On a personal note, I knew Vaughan, and he was a man of fierce loyalties and of exceptional courage. He fought for his communities through his political career and later on. I considered him a friend. It was always a highlight to hear him speak. He would use fantastic expressions that are no longer heard much, like 'country so rich, if you planted a feather it would grow a chook'. He had a handshake that would crush most men's hands, and he was just a terrific person.

I recently spoke to Dick Wharton, who was the director-general of the Queensland transport department when Vaughan was the minister, and Dick said that he was just a great bloke. He was determined to build an outcome; in this case it was the M1. He worked on facts, not emotion. He would fix problems. He would ensure that the project was delivered for Queensland, but, if somebody had a genuine concern, Vaughan would listen and fix that as well.

There is also a rumour that abounds that the square Bundaberg Rum bottle was developed after feedback from Vaughan Johnson that the round ones would roll away from your swag. I don't know if that's true, but it is a mark of the kind of man that he was. He was practical. He persevered. He was a great champion of the bush. At his funeral service, where his children spoke so well, over a thousand people turned out to pay tribute to a truly great Queenslander. Vale, Vaughan Johnson. (Time expired)

Today I rise to speak about government intervention in the housing market. As senators we are elected to improve the lives of every single Australian man, woman and child. The pandemic housing bubble and subsequent loss-making construction boom are perfect examples of how government intervention, no matter how well intentioned, ultimately makes things a whole lot worse.

During 2020 our federal government panicked. It acted out of fear and decided to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at our economy. Their excessive and often unchecked spending was a reaction to pressure from both domestic and international forces, who were united in their campaign to break every single rule in our tried-and-tested pandemic handbook. JobKeeper, JobSeeker, and construction and renovation grants are key examples of the waste, which total hundreds of billions of dollars.

The housing sector, obviously, was the immediate beneficiary. Combined grants provided by federal and state governments totalled up to $55,000 in some cases. That's $55,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money being gifted to a select few people. Anyone—anyone—with a basic understanding of economics knows that handing out large sums of money will destabilise and manipulate the market. That's obvious. To make matters worse, many of these grants were conditional upon recipients borrowing an excessive amount of extra money from their lenders at a time of record low interest rates.

The government effectively used the Australian people as pawns—that's what they did—to bail out our economy in the very short term. Fast-forward a few months, and we began to see both land and build costs skyrocket. A year later we saw massive workforce shortages, and two years later we saw unchecked inflation, leading to a construction sector overwhelmed with work and going broke due to combined inflationary pressures, materials and worker shortages. These issues were created not by the pandemic but by the former government's unnatural reaction to the pandemic.

The United Australia Party took to the election a platform of lower taxes, lower government debt—a focus which should, if I'm honest, be bipartisan in our democratic nation. Our fiscal policies were based on the known macroeconomic consequences of government debt accumulation. Empirical evidence shows that a more sustained public debt accumulation will lead to long-term interest rate rises. Never again can our country run up such an irresponsible amount of debt like the former government ran up. We know that it is our children and our children's children who will be left to service this debt, and by then the cost of these funds will almost certainly be more expensive, which will lead to higher tax rates just to pay the bill on the interest.

Our states also have their thinking upside down. In my home state of Victoria, developers are going to be hit with a windfall gains tax, a massive 62.5 per cent, on all property over $100,000 that is rezoned. None of these measures do anything to help struggling Aussies achieve the dream of homeownership. Every dollar that the government injects into the housing market manipulates the natural cycle. Every new tax imposed on builders, developers and investors reduces supply.

The answer is actually very simple: less stimulus, lower taxes. If governments remove financial barriers, the market will naturally provide adequate supply at a price acceptable to consumers. For too long, the focus has been on government incentivising the demand side of the equation with taxpayer money. It's time to focus on the supply side. The most effective way to increase supply in the market is to reduce taxes, levies and duties which stand in the way of progress. Government dictates and socialist ideology will not solve our housing supply problem. Government must instead focus on bringing down barriers. Only then can the market meet demand.

Senate adjourned at 19:54