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

We have seen unprecedented use of onerous government powers here in the ACT over the past few months. We're very lucky to live in a nation where governments have typically judiciously used the enormous powers that are gifted to them in our Constitution. Most Australian governments have not sought to simply appropriate people's private assets without due process, without due warning and without due consultation. I think this is perhaps the first and most egregious case in our nation's history where an elected so-called democratic government has, within a matter of weeks, done an almost midnight raid. They walked into a business, walked into a Canberra institution—the Calvary hospital—and said: 'Hey, it's a nice business you have here, guys, but we're just going to take it over.' That's exactly what happened here in the ACT a couple of months ago.

In early May the ACT government demanded a meeting with the Calvary hospital executives. At that meeting they were handed a letter from the Chief Minister of the ACT which said: 'We are going to take over your business, take over your buildings and rescind the contract we have with you that has 76 years left. We're going to take that over with six weeks notice.' Just six weeks notice was given to the Calvary public hospital, despite the fact that they had been a valued partner in the ACT providing health services for more than 50 years. This behaviour, this conduct, deserves to be called out. It deserves to be called out so that we don't see it repeated in this country.

The Senate finally had a committee hearing on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023 a few weeks ago. The Catholic archdiocese here gave evidence that this was the first time in our nation's history that an institution of the Catholic Church had been taken over in a compulsory fashion. Catholicism has sometimes struggled in this country. It has had some degree of opprobrium associated with it at different times, but apparently never has a government gone in and just taken over the assets of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church runs lot of different things in this country, especially in the health and education spaces, and this was the first time a government did this.

This was a shock to the ACT people. As I said, Calvary has been a valued partner of the ACT for more than 50 years. I myself lived in Canberra. It was a great place to have kids. We had three children, one of whom was born in the Calvary hospital. I think I speak for anybody who has lived in Canberra or still lives in Canberra when I say that the services of the Calvary hospital have been greatly valued by the ACT people. So, whatever the ACT government wanted to do with public hospital services here in the ACT, this was no way to treat someone in your community. The Calvary public hospital was a valued someone in the ACT community, and it was completely beyond the pale for an elected government to march in and use these most severe of government powers to just kick them out with not even a thankyou note: 'Thank you for your service. You're gone.'

Keep in mind that today we're about four or five months on from this saga, and we still don't know—more importantly, the Calvary public hospital don't know—how much the ACT government is going to pay them for this. They've taken over the assets. They took them over on 3 July. They marched in and took the crucifix down off the Calvary public hospital. It was the first thing they did, I think. They still haven't been given a final figure. How can this be in any way just? How can this be in any way on the just terms that the ACT government has to operate under when it acquires property, which this parliament has enforced through the ACT (Self-Government) Act?

Before I get more onto some of the specifics, I do want to stress that this private senator's bill simply requires the ACT government to have a review. I recognise that the ACT government is a democratically elected government. They've got an election next year, and the timing of that election might have something to do with how hastily they have done this, but eventually the Canberra people will have their say on the behaviour of their own government. But I do think they also deserve to have their say while their government is in power, and all this bill would require would be for the ACT government to have a review to give the people of Canberra their say and give the people of Canberra an opportunity to put forward the luminous concerns we received through our committee process to their elected representatives.

As I've progressed this debate, I've noticed that the ACT government seems to be confused about the concept of territory rights. The ACT Labor-Greens government seems to think that territory rights are to protect the politicians, not the people, and that somehow territory rights are there to protect the rights of those who are lucky enough to have well-paid positions in the ACT Legislative Assembly, not to protect the rights of the Canberra people. Well, I fundamentally reject that. The rights of the ACT and other territories are in fact there to protect the people of that jurisdiction. The people of that jurisdiction deserve not to have the untrammelled power of government imposed on them in this fashion. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to request the ACT government to conduct a review here.

I particularly reject some of the hypocritical squealing we've heard from other senators in this place about this issue. I've seen Greens senators pop up. Suddenly, the Greens are wonderful defenders of territory rights—and, presumably, state rights too. They've got a bill in this place at the moment that wants to stop the Beetaloo basin project. The Northern Territory government has been democratically elected to develop the Beetaloo basin. It was their policy platform. They want to do that. They want to build this thing called Middle Arm, and the Greens here want to come in and stop it. Okay, fine—but don't come back into this place and somehow say that you support territory rights when you actually have a bill to stop people from totally doing something. My bill doesn't do that. My bill doesn't stop the ACT government from deciding how it provides public hospital services. It simply would give the Canberra people a say, and I think that's perfectly reasonable.

The people who should be at the front of the line to have that say, if this review were to occur, are the 1,800 health workers, nurses and doctors who have had their lives turned upside down by a so-called Labor government here in the ACT. So not only do the people of Canberra just get six weeks notice on what would happen to their public hospital services but, more to the point, those 1,800 workers had just six weeks notice that their lives would be turned upside down.

This is a Labor government and I thought the Labor Party cared about nurses and doctors. I would love to hear from the Labor senators who respond to me what they think about the treatment of nurses and doctors in this fashion. Many of those nurses and doctors decided to work at Calvary here in the ACT because they didn't want to work for a government; they didn't want to work for a big bureaucracy. There is a whole lot of other issues that seem to be going on at the Canberra Hospital that is run by the ACT government and some people chose that, no, they would prefer to work for a charitable not-for-profit company. Some workers would also be of faith as well, whether it is Catholic or other faiths. We heard evidence from people who were of different religious faiths who felt valued within the Calvary hospital organisation and that is why they chose to work there at Bruce in Canberra. But they had their lives turned upside down with six weeks notice—no consultation, no discussion, no, 'Here, we're thinking about this option. What do you think? How do we make this easier for you?' No, just straight in.

Much worse was revealed in our committee. While the ACT government gave just six weeks notice and rushed through the legislation in the Legislative Assembly, there were obviously a lot of details to be worked out when seeking to take over someone's assets within such a short frame of time. In evidence to this committee, Calvary were not given assurances that, if they were to offer redundancies to their workforce, they would be compensated for those redundancies. Would the ACT government underwrite those redundancies? They were given no such guarantees for much of that six-week period. In fact, it was not until, I think, Thursday 30 June, the Thursday of that week, that they were given the assurance that the ACT government would underwrite the redundancies. It was only on that day that Calvary could provide formal redundancy offers to the 1,800 workers.

The takeover was on the Sunday and, thanks to the ACT government's behaviour, they were only able to give three days notice.

It was only one working day.

As a Senator Scarr has pointed out, it was really only one working day's notice to 1,800 workers to make a grave decision about their future. I was flabbergasted that a Labor government would treat health workers in such a clearly cynical fashion. Because, clearly, the agenda was to limit the number of people who would take redundancies so there wasn't too much of a disruption to ACT health services, so, cynically, the ACT government made it very, very difficult for health workers in this territory to take up their industrial labour rights. The Labor Party are stopping workers here using their industrial labour rights to choose a redundancy in a situation where they were no longer employed by that employer. That is what has happened.

I need to also comment on the clandestine way that the ACT government has conducted this in the last 12 months. After the meeting I mentioned that I had with Calvary, a couple of days later—within days—the ACT government had a full bit of legislation ready to go to take over the hospital. The history was that, about a year before that, the ACT government had started negotiations with Calvary Hospital on the construction of a new hospital, a northside hospital, which was a promise to the Canberra people for some time but hadn't been done. They were negotiating that situation. Calvary had been provided an offer to buy the hospital, rip up the contract et cetera. Calvary wrote back to the ACT government saying, 'Hey, that is a bit too much land than we would like.' Sorry, they weren't ripping up the contract; the offer was for a 25-year contract, not the 76 years left. Calvary said, 'No, we really want to do the 76 years.' They wrote back to them in November last year and didn't hear back. They got a recognition letter in January saying, 'We note your correspondence,' but nothing again until May this year, when a whole bunch of legislation, this big hammer, taking over their property was lobbed on them. Clearly the ACT government had been working on that behind the scenes while they were otherwise trying to say they were negotiating in good faith with Calvary. Again, the conduct of the ACT government here is beyond the pale. I've never seen a government in this country act like this, and hopefully we'll never see it again.

We asked at the Senate inquiry, 'When did you start drafting this legislation?' At the time, at that hearing, the ACT health minister originally said it was April and then came back and corrected the record and said it was March. Well, I was a bit surprised to read this week in the Canberra Times that new freedom of information documents show:

The ACT's cabinet signed off on the start of work to draft a law to compulsorily acquire Calvary Public Hospital Bruce a year before announcing the takeover.

So I think there's a question to be asked of the Senate here. The ACT health minister came here almost under duress. We had to go through the Senate to get this done—and I thank her for coming along. But it's a very serious matter to mislead the Senate, and it would appear to me—on the surface, at least—that there is a question to be asked about why the ACT health minister told the committee that the drafting of the law started in March, when freedom of information documents show it had been done earlier. In fact, apparently in those documents Ms Stephen-Smith had commented, in the feedback provided on the drafting notes: 'The point of getting the policy approval for legislative drafting was to commence drafting now, not wait and see. I'm keen to get an early look at what a bill might look like.' That's apparently what she said in these documents. So there are a lot of questions there.

The Canberra people have a lot of questions. Since I've taken up this fight, as a former resident of the ACT, I have been stopped in the street here in Canberra by many people aghast at how their own government has treated, as I said, a valued partner of this community—whatever your thoughts are on how public hospital services should be run. I think this community, Canberra, is a really friendly place. When I lived here it was a good-sized country town, and there were institutions here, like Calvary, that were the glue that held the place together. To treat someone like that is not consistent, I think, with the good nature of the Canberra people. I really do think that it is worth us making these points in the Senate. It is worth us holding up the principle of the rule of law and it is worth us at least helping the Canberra people have their say about this abuse of law.

I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. This is a piece of legislation which would require the ACT government to hold an inquiry into its own legislation, the Health Infrastructure Enabling Act 2023, which took effect on 3 July. There are a number of reasons why I've chosen to make a contribution to this debate today. Firstly, no doubt like many senators here, I have received a lot of correspondence from members of the public about this issue. At last count, I had received 1,300 emails. Some emails have been from the ACT; however, the vast majority of the contact I've received has been from other parts of Australia. I want to take this opportunity to address the points raised with me through my inbox.

Secondly, I think it's important to call out this bill and the committee process that surrounded it for what it is: a political stunt for the Nationals to dog whistle and whip up debates which highlight alleged religious divisions. Similarly, the Greens' choice to support a committee inquiry into a decision taken by their territory government counterparts when their ultimate position is now to oppose the passage of the bill not only made the inquiry a waste of the Senate's time and resources but revealed the Greens' support for what it was: a cheap political stunt designed to cause pain for ACT Labor members in this parliament and the territory legislature.

There's a point of order, Senator White.

I have great respect for Senator White, but she is making general statements which are impugning the motives of many, many senators in this place, including members of the Greens; my friend Senator Canavan, who was the mover of this private member's bill; and members on this side. I would ask that she withdraw.

Senator White, Senator Scarr has a point. I allowed you to go, but you were being critical of decisions of the Senate. The Senate makes its own decisions in a democratic way, so I'd ask you to be measured with your comments.

I will measure my comments. Nevertheless, the politics aside, I want to set out why I think the bill is a bad idea. It's a matter of principle that this parliament and this Senate do not interfere in the self-government of the ACT and the Northern Territory or undermine the independence of those legislatures. The ACT was granted self-government in 1988. It is my view that from that point on it became inappropriate for the Commonwealth to cherry-pick issues that the elected parliament in the ACT could legislate on. Once the power to make its own decisions was handed out and the people of the ACT got responsibility and elected a government to represent them, the Commonwealth, out of principle, should no longer restrict it.

We saw the same principle applied last year with the debate on Restoring Territory Rights Bill. The parliament agreed, with the support of many coalition members and senators, that restricting the power of territory legislatures to make decisions about themselves for themselves was wrong. The debate found that restricting the rights of the territories to actually govern themselves through the prism of single issues was not right. Yet, with this bill, we are making the same mistake again by seeking to overturn the recently expressed will of this Senate that using a hot-button issue to justify interfering in the self-government and democratic processes of an entire Australian jurisdiction is just not right. The position taken with this bill is unprincipled, and I feel it is disingenuous.

The fact is that the ACT has an elected government and a well-equipped parliament, and interfering with it would be legally strange. The view was echoed by the ACT solicitor-general in his submission to the inquiry to the bill:

It would be unprecedented for one legislature to seek to direct the executive of another government to undertake an executive action … which really flies in the face of basic principles of our system of government. One jurisdiction should not be in a position to dictate what another self-governing jurisdiction does in such a fashion.

From those comments, it's clear that whichever organisation runs the Calvary hospital is a matter for the ACT people, enacted through a majority of elected members of the ACT parliament which makes up their executive. Reviewing that decision through an inquiry is not a matter for the Commonwealth government or the Senate. It was an executive decision for the ACT. Australians, acting through their local parliaments, deserve the same equal rights to legal self-determination and should not be stood over by this chamber or the Commonwealth government. This sentiment was well expressed in the ACT government's submission to the inquiry when it outlined:

… the majority of elected members of the ACT Legislative Assembly have so far concluded that they do not want and did not seek to create—

an inquiry into the decision—

The Self-Government Amendment Bill ignores existing mechanisms for deliberation, accountability, transparency and debate that have operated as intended. It instead attempts to interfere in the ACT's self-government and to impose a poorly defined requirement that undermines the Assembly's decisions on when and how to consider, scrutinise and pass legislation and is, on its terms, inconsistent with the principles of responsible government.

To me, that summary says it all. We should keep out of decisions which do not concern us.

Putting this matter of principle to one side, the second reason I wanted to speak on this debate today was to unpack what I see it as the merits of the ACT decision over Calvary hospital. From my point of view, the move to publicly insource the hospital sounds like a good idea. If you're going to spend millions of dollars over decades to publicly fund an entire hospital and its redevelopment, it makes sense that the territory government would also like to own it. The decision of the ACT government, contrary to a lot of letters I've received about this issue, was not a takeover. The former Calvary public hospital was a public hospital, publicly funded by the ACT government. All the buildings at the site were paid for by either the ACT government or the Commonwealth government.

As Calvary public hospital was funded by the government in order to provide a service, it was well within the power of the ACT government to terminate its contract of service with the contractors who formerly ran Calvary. What's more, it's not as though the decision came out of the blue. There's been significant consultation over this decision for some time. In fact, there have been two stages of public consultation over the proposal to in-house North Canberra Hospital, and a two-year negotiation process which, by all accounts, did not happen in good faith from the side of the hospital administrators. Throughout the negotiation process, the ACT government made it clear that, as a last result, it would consider legislating to acquire the land if necessary, and after two years of Calvary not coming to the party, it made a decision that the long-term best interests of Canberra were served by publicly owning and operating a hospital which was collectively funded by the people of the ACT. The transition of the hospital staff and administration of the ACT government occurred on 4 July this year. Given this extensive consultation and negotiation process and the fact that the transition has already happened, the substance of this bill is actually redundant. Forcing the ACT government to hold an inquiry into a decision that was two years in the making and has already happened, in my view, is ridiculous. I think Senator Canavan knows this and he is properly just as surprised as anyone that he even got an inquiry into this legislation in the first place. Sadly, though, as I mentioned earlier, I think this has been an attempt to whip up fear about religious freedom.

I rise on a point of order. I respect her right to make general arguments, but she referred to Senator Canavan introducing the bill and now she's talking about Senator Canavan whipping up fear through the presentation of the bill. That's the only way to interpret Senator White's comments.

Senator White, I just ask you to withdraw that for the benefit of the chamber.

Sure. I'm happy to withdraw that. To me, the debate hinges on a few things—firstly, on a matter of principle. This bill sits badly with me. The Senate and the federal parliament should not seek to interfere or meddle in the decisions made by other democratically elected governments. This principle has been developed over a long time, and it was again confirmed with the passage of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill last year, which saw the principle of territory self-government reinforced by the federal parliament. From a technical legal angle, the evidence given by the ACT Solicitor-General to the inquiry that it would be legally unprecedented for one government to direct the executive actions of another government also confirms my view that this bill is a bad idea.

From a policy point of view, I also happen to think that it's fair and reasonable for the ACT government to own the land and hospital buildings that are entirely funded by the people of the ACT. If you're spending billions of dollars over decades on a public hospital, it makes sense you would want to own it.

Finally, while I take the criticism in relation to motivation, the people that wrote to me by e-mail definitely called out this reason. They said this was motivated by a view to limit religious freedom. They didn't talk about ACT rights or territory rights. What they said was totally homing in on religious freedom. I have no objection, and nor should any of us, to the rights of Catholic Australians to practise their religion or publicly put their views on issues in this way, but in no way should it undermine the public ownership of North Canberra Hospital.

The ACT government's decision is not part of a wider plot to undermine religious freedom in Australia. It was a government decision which would have been taken had the administrators of the hospital been based in faith or not. On that basis, I'm glad that the government will not be supporting the passage of this bill.

I want to say right at the outset that the Greens completely oppose the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. We completely oppose the bill debated today by Senator Canavan and find it to be quite a ludicrous proposition. Now, during the course of this debate there have been comparisons made between the Greens position opposing this bill and our current oppositional position in relation to the development of the Beetaloo gas basin and our support for inquiries into that project. Let me make very clear the distinction which we draw between an issue such as the ACT government making decisions in the best interests of its community in the commission of its public health service and the Beetaloo basin. One proposition is in the public good, the other proposition is demonstrably against the public good.

So you decide? The NT people don't get to decide, you decide?

That's the test, Jordon?

This is stunning! We have interjections from Liberal and National senators in this place, outraged that a political party would use its judgement as to what is and isn't in the public good! If they would like to rise during the course of this debate and make the argument that the development of the Beetaloo basin is in the public good, well, they're more than welcome to do so. But they cannot, because there is no evidence to support that proposition. The only people who would make that argument are coal-powered goons bought and paid for by the gas and coal industries. If anyone would like to rise and identify themselves as such, I will most certainly give them leave to do so.

Let's get to the substance of what is actually happening here, because I'm not going to go into the space of trying to sink myself into the minds of the people who put this piece of legislation together and whether or not they were seeking to incite some kind of fear campaign in their community based upon religion or any other attribute of a community member. What I do feel that I'm safe to say is that the motivation behind the putting together of this piece of legislation was, quite clearly, an attempt by the Liberal Party in this place to fill the howling void where an actual agenda of reform and positive change for the ACT should be when it comes to the ACT Liberal Party—a hollow, moribund organisation which has consistently failed to win the support of the territory and which has been told consistently at the ballot box, time and time again, that it does not have the community's support.

So the ACT Liberal Party, working together with their mates in here, are trying to make this into an issue. They tried to run this campaign to try to give them something to talk about. It was absolutely nonsense! I'm proud to be here as a member of a party that is willing to call it out, and I will attempt to drag this conversation back to the substance of what is actually occurring in the ACT. What is occurring in the ACT is that the Greens-Labor government of that territory, elected at a previous election, is seeking to build a public health system that works for the community—a public health system that delivers what the community needs. It is totally right and reasonable, given that the ACT government is looking to continue to spend a significant amount of public funds in building their health service, that they would want to own the infrastructure of that health service.

It is within the right and power of any executive government in Australia to cancel a contract with a private organisation. That is a standard established process, and if members in this place want to complain about that then they also open up a conversation for themselves about the right of executive government to do things like seize farmlands when farmers want to deny entry and operation of gas operations across Australia. Yet I don't hear LNP members of this place making the argument that companies should be prevented from doing that or, indeed, that governments should be prevented from backing them up in that action. In fact, what we've seen in this place is the LNP coming into these chambers and repeatedly arguing for the right of state and federal governments to override the wishes of farmers and First Nations communities when it comes to the exploration and extraction of gas, nuclear materials or other products on their lands. That's what we actually see, time and time again, in this chamber.

Again, I want to emphasise that the Greens want to support the decision that has been made by the ACT government, composed as it is of members of the Greens and of the Labor Party, and we support them in their broader push to build a connected, integrated and effective public health system. I celebrate them for the work they have done in building that system. We are sitting in the territory which has one of the highest rates of COVID-19 vaccination in the world. It was 98 per cent the last time I checked. That is an incredible achievement. It was a product of good deep work between different ministers within the government and community members. They were able to do that because of the way they work their public health system. After that demonstration of success I'm really excited to see what the future of an integrated, effective and efficient public health system in Canberra and the entire territory is, because they've demonstrated that they are very good at doing their job.

Finally I want to tackle the question of whether it is ever appropriate for one legislature to inquire into or to draft legislation in relation to the actions of another legislature. There have been various contributions on that topic of principle during this debate. My view on this is really simple. There are circumstances in which it is reasonable for a legislature to put forward a piece of legislation or to inquire into the activities of another legislature. They are, firstly, when it can be demonstrated a systemic failure by that legislature is impacting the members of the community served by that legislature who are also represented in the relevant chamber or the executive position of power and, secondly, when it can be demonstrated that there has been a systemic attempt to cover up said failure by a legislature or executive body. In those circumstances it is appropriate for a legislature, within the bounds of the Constitution, to draft and pass legislation in relation to that legislature. Those thresholds have not been met in this circumstance and no reasonable case can be made that they have been. In the absence of evidence otherwise there should be no course for this chamber other than to reject a bill such as the one we are discussing today.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in support of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. Senator Canavan is quite correct to want an inquiry into the ACT government's seizure of Calvary hospital. I commend him for introducing this bill to the chamber. I was the first senator to speak out against this takeover—on 27 May 2023 at the March for Life rally in the Rockhampton Riverside Precinct. Senator Canavan was in attendance as well. I commend him for taking it up.

This is a blatant attack on religion in health care. It cannot be dressed up as anything else. I note that the Catholic archbishop has avoided using those words. That may be because the archdiocese is reliant on government funding across many health and welfare areas and does not want to ruffle feathers. It wants to protect that funding. What has happened to churches in this country is that they've been captured. I consider the Catholic archbishop's decision a poor decision. Bending in the wind is not what religion is about. Defending religious theology is a central function of the Roman Catholic Church.

This issue is a clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living viable fetus and health bureaucrats that would kill such a fetus, a human. It's a clash between religious principles that stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person, who may make a different decision free from coercion and momentary despair, and health bureaucrats seeking to use euthanasia as a device to balance their budget. The only god autocrats respect is the god of power.

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules. That has inflamed ACT autocrats. The common reply repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies is: 'There's no place for religion in health care.' It seems to me that this is the most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in drag queen story time the religious groups were told, 'If you don't like it, don't go.' Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don't want religion in your health care, don't go to a Christian-managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don't like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility. If you don't like religion in education, don't send your children to a religious school. See how it works? Freedom of choice. That is what is irking the Canberra autocrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in this country.

Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital and who are grateful for it. We know from many media reports the enabling legislation was prepared a year ahead of this takeover. Calvary were not informed of this and continued to negotiate on a new northside hospital in good faith. We know the ACT government just had its credit rating reduced. There has been no progress on negotiations over the cash compensation the ACT government must pay to Calvary for the seizure of its assets. I wonder if they have the money to pay?

Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate's purview, and I am strongly in support of this bill. I said this before and I'll say it again: my message to Canberra health autocrats is God decides who lives or dies, not you.

This bill is an attack on territory rights. The people of the ACT fought for 25 years to have the Andrews bill overturned, which went through on the voices last year. There was unanimous support from the Senate to allow the ACT to debate and make laws that affect them. Last week, we lost a person who campaigned hard to repeal that bill. She sat behind me in the chamber as it was debated. She dedicated the end of her life to seeing that done. My commitment to her and to many others in our community was that I will stand up for the rights of territorians to have our own democratically elected Legislative Assembly and to hold it to account, rather than see federal overreach into the affairs of the territory. This is a principle we must stand by.

I will not be supporting this bill and I urge my colleagues to not turn their backs on territory rights after we have just finally got them back. I engaged with a number of people in the ACT on this issue who were supportive of the takeover of Calvary and to people very much opposed to it who wrote to both the chief minister and health minister saying they believe there should be an inquiry at the Legislative Assembly level. The two committees who could do that both decided not to hold on inquiry. Yes, we know that the committees are government-controlled, but Canberrans will be able to hold the government to account at the next territory election. We do live in a democracy here in the ACT and it is our democratic right to be able to decide at the next election whether or not we approve of the way that this and other issues have been handled.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on this. I will not be supporting Senator Canavan's bill.

Let me tell you that the takeover of Calvary Hospital has nothing to do with an attack on territory rights. It is an attack on religion and it is an attack on the right to hold property. Section 116 of the Constitution says there is a thing called freedom of religion and, whether or not you like it, governments don't get to walk in and seize property whenever they don't like what is going on. So I think that this bill should be passed, because what has happened here is just the start. One of the reasons the ACT government has given is that somehow a one-provider service model will give you the best outcomes. Since when has having monopolies controlling any sort of system or any sort of service the ideal outcome?

And then you've got another part of the Constitution, section 51(xxxi), which provides that the parliament has the power to make laws with respect to the acquisition of property on just and fair terms. Since when does a government have the right to come in and seize property for no reason other than the fact that they just want to run the entire place and mightn't like the look of you? This is an egregious attack on property rights and an egregious attack on the right of freedom of religion. I ask that this bill be voted up. I don't want to hear about territory rights, because the individual comes first and the individual has the right to choose the sort of health service they want. As to this whole idea that somehow you're attacking the territory, I'm sorry, but the ACT was only ever set up to serve the rest of the country. It is not there to become a little quasi-monopolistic, dictatorial state where it gets to override freedom of choice, freedom in regard to health and freedom of religion.

I just want to make a brief contribution. I support the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. I'd like to see it move forward. What has been done here in the ACT by the ACT government is a massive overreach. It's no surprise that the Australian Capital Territory administration have done this sort of caper. This forced takeover of the Calvary hospital, the private Catholic organisation, is an absolute shame. It's a major breach of faith with the community and certainly for those of faith within the ACT. Indeed, the signal that it is sending right across the country is of a very concerning step that has been taken here.

I note that the Calvary hospital had 76 years of its lease remaining and operated under an agreement with the then ACT health minister, the soon-to-be Minister for Finance in this place, Katy Gallagher, since 2011. Calvary engaged in negotiations and even offered to return land to the ACT government. Despite all these efforts, the ACT government decided to forcefully take over the private hospital.

A lot has been said about this and whether or not this is an attack on freedom of religion. I for one believe that that is the case. I think that's evidenced by what happened on the very day after the handover occurred. What was the very first thing the government did? They got a crane, erected it, set it up and took down the cross. They didn't even allow for a couple of days to go by. It was the very first thing they did. I would have thought there were other things that might have been done. They could have sat down with the staff and talked to them about the changes that were occurring. But the very first thing they did was get some contractors in to take down the cross.

I think that demonstrates exactly what this is about. I think it's sending all the wrong messages. It's demonstrating the DNA of a Labor government and what they do if given too much power and too much control. I fear other steps they might take across the country. I'm very disappointed. I really do urge those that are listening to this debate, and those senators that in a moment will have a chance to vote on this, to support this very sensible bill that's been put up. I urge senators to support it in the strongest possible way, and of course that is by coming in here and voting for this legislation.

(Quorum formed)

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

I present the government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on its inquiry into the human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government

Australian Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report

Human rights implications of recent violence in Iran

September 2023

Executive Summary

The Australian Government appreciates the work of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. The Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to its inquiry 'Human rights implications of recent violence in Iran' and to outline the practical steps that have been actively employed or are under consideration in response to these human rights abuses.

The whole-of-government response to the Committee's recommendations has been coordinated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), in consultation with the following Commonwealth agencies:

The Government supports the overarching principle of the report that it is crucial to hold the Iranian regime to account for its egregious human rights abuses against the Iranian people, including the violent crackdown on protests following the death of Ms Mahsa 'Jina' Amini. However, the Government does not accept the Committee's finding that Australia continues to lag behind other nations in responding to the human rights abuses in Iran.

The Australian Government has been consistent, proactive and assertive in holding the Iranian regime to account for its gross violations of human rights. Australia has condemned Iran's repression of protesters and its ongoing systematic discrimination against women and girls, in public statements, jointly with partners and in multilateral forums such as the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Australia has been integral to building pressure internationally and was at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the Commission for the Status of Women. Australia co-sponsored and advocated for the establishment of an independent fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations in Iran.

The Australian Government has imposed three packages of sanctions on Iran in response to the regime's abhorrent abuses of human rights and brutal crackdown on protests and for Iran's continued provision of drones to Russia for use in its illegal and immoral war in Ukraine.

The Australian Government has imposed sanctions on 56 individuals and 23 entities since the protests began, including Iran's Morality Police, the Basij Resistance Force, and senior Iranian law enforcement, military, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials.

The Australian Government has amended the Iran autonomous sanctions framework to include new criteria that allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to sanction persons and entities, involved in:

These changes will ensure that Australia is able to more quickly and effectively respond to the oppression of the Iranian people, as well as Iran's destabilising activities abroad.

The Australian Government has taken steps to limit Australia's engagement with Iran where it is in our interests to do so. In April 2023, the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to state and territory governments, Australian public universities and university peak bodies, encouraging these entities to put on hold any existing cooperation with Iranian entities and to avoid engaging in any new initiatives.

The following Australian Government response addresses the Committee's recommendations and underscores the Government's resolute support for the human rights of the people of Iran. Three recommendations are accepted, seven are noted and two are not accepted. The response notes most recommendations as Australia has either been actively pursuing or considering many of the recommended courses of action or, in line with Australian Government policy, we do not speculate on certain actions such as sanctions or listings under the Criminal Code.

The Albanese Government has taken stronger action against Iran on human rights than any previous Australian government. We will continue to deliberately and strategically put pressure on the Iranian regime to uphold human rights.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government oppose the election of the

Islamic Republic of Iran to any United Nations' bodies in light of the regime's clear disregard for human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its centre.

We recognise that the multilateral system is fundamental to our interests.

As a middle power, we work judiciously and with partners to pursue our core interests through the system, calibrating and prioritising our actions to ensure the most effective use of finite Australian resources.

We will work to oppose the election of Islamic Republic of Iran, and that of other countries and candidates, to United Nations' bodies when it is in our interests to do so.

To this end, the Australian Government was at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, co-sponsoring the resolution that led to its successful expulsion.

Australia also successfully advocated for and co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Special Session resolution on human rights in Iran calling for the establishment of an independent Fact-Finding Mission.

The Australian Government has also registered our disappointment at Iran's appointment as Chair of the 2023 UN HRC Social Forum. We are deeply troubled that a country which so blatantly disregards human rights continues to be appointed to positions of leadership in the preeminent global body dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights for all people.

Australia made a national statement to the HRC, expressing our concerns with Iran's human rights violations. In this statement, Australia also asserted our solidarity with peaceful protesters and called for accountability.

Australia will continue to advocate strongly in multilateral bodies, including the UN General Assembly and HRC, to condemn Iran's ongoing human rights abuses and violations, especially its persecution of women and girls. Australia's recent advocacy includes our National Statement at the 52nd session of the HRC on 20 March 2023 and our advocacy for the adoption of a strong draft resolution expressing concern of the human rights situation in Iran at the 77th session of the UN General Assembly's Third Committee in November 2022.

Recommendation 2

The Committee is deeply concerned about credible allegations of intimidation and threats against Australian citizens, residents and their families. It recommends that the responsible Ministers provide an update to the Parliament and the Australian public on the government's current assessment of whether persons connected to the IRI regime are undertaking such behaviour in Australia.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation in part.

The Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Clare O'Neil MP, publicly attributed the surveillance, harassment and intimidation of individuals in Australia to the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) in her speech on 14 February 2023 (htttps://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au). The Minister for Home Affairs has directed the National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator to develop an attribution framework for the Australian Government.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure there is an appropriate level of expertise and resourcing in the relevant government departments and agencies, including foreign language speakers and community liaison officers, available to quickly investigate and assess threats against Australians.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Commonwealth agencies work together to engage and support communities concerned or affected by foreign interference.

The AFP and ASIO led Counter Foreign Interference (CFI) Taskforce was established in 2020 to discover, investigate and disrupt foreign interference. Where allegations of foreign interference are raised, they are referred to the CFI Taskforce.

The Department of Home Affairs maintains a Community Liaison Officer (CLO) Network not to investigate and assess, but to engage with key community groups on matters of concern, including appropriate mechanisms to report allegations or concerns, and support a two-way information flow with government. The CLO Network has strengthened its ability to engage with culturally and linguistically diverse communities through the addition of language specialist liaison officers.

The Department of Home Affairs also maintains state-based CFI engagement officers who meet with community groups to strengthen resilience to foreign interference.

The AFP maintains Community Liaison Teams (CLTs) which have the primary aim of building, supporting and managing productive, diverse and complex stakeholder relationships and networks. CLTs work to ensure police legitimacy and trust through engagements that strengthen social cohesion and community resilience, and inform and support the well- being of vulnerable and at-risk members of diverse communities.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that all reports of threats, intimidation, monitoring or surveillance by the Iranian community in Australia are followed up, recorded, assessed and reported to the lead coordination agency (regardless of whether individual reports result in a criminal investigation) to ensure that the government has a complete picture of foreign interference efforts by the IRI in Australia. The Committee further recommends that the relevant agencies report to Parliament through the Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security on such activities.

Response:

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

As part of the CFI Taskforce, ASIO and AFP staff operate under their own legislative powers and mechanisms for reporting outcomes to Government.

All reports of foreign interference and espionage are currently considered, triaged and assessed for investigation. This is prioritised through existing mechanisms of cooperation between intelligence agencies and law enforcement, which includes and enables formal information sharing between agencies where there is a relevance and requirement under respective legislations.

As investigations are undertaken on a strict prioritisation of harm, the CFI Taskforce takes a stringent country agnostic approach to investigations. Threats to public safety, threatening of family members, forced repatriations and other serious threats of harm are considered a high priority for response.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has certain administrative and expenditure review and oversight functions under section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. Intelligence agencies regularly appear before the Committee and provide reports on relevant matters.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with its allies and through international forums, seek to improve its policy framework to deter the practice of hostage diplomacy and increase transparency and public awareness of the regimes which engage in hostage diplomacy.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Australia stands resolutely against the practice of arbitrary detention, arrest and sentencing wherever it may occur, including in Iran. We continue to support global efforts to deter the practice of arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage through advocacy in multilateral forums, including the UN HRC and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

At the 45th Session of the HRC on 1 October 2020, Australia led a joint statement, delivered by Sweden and supported by 35 countries, on politically motivated arbitrary detention calling on all states to treat detainees in accordance with international human rights law. Australia was one of the first countries to endorse the Canada-led Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, launched in February 2021. Australia also supports the associated Partnership Action Plan, which aims to operationalise the Declaration, establishing voluntary measures states may wish to support and sustain momentum against this practice.

These measures include engaging civil society, academics and think tanks; or supporting targeted media campaigns to strengthen international awareness to stop arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. This initiative is a broader policy response and is not targeted at any one case or country.

While the Australian Government recognises that there are no perfect systems or easy solutions, we are committed to refining and improving the ways in which we support Australians detained overseas.

This year, DFAT established the Complex Case Committee to improve its management of complex consular cases, including cases potentially subject to arbitrary detention or hostage diplomacy. The Committee brings together senior decision-makers across government to apply a strategic lens to ensure we are exploring every avenue to make progress on complex cases. The Committee will also provide greater scrutiny of arbitrary detention cases and focuses efforts on their resolution.

DFAT has also established an External Advisory Group this year to better incorporate expert and stakeholder views into support for detainees and their families in complex consular cases. The Group will meet twice a year to provide expertise on handling these cases.

DFAT advises Australians travelling overseas of country-specific travel risks on the Smartraveller website. The travel advice for Iran advises Australians not to travel to Iran and highlights the increased risk of arbitrary detention or arrest. Advice on the risk of arbitrary detention is also provided for a number of other countries.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government use the available Magnitsky legislation to expand the list of individuals and entities subject to sanctions in response to human rights abuses in Iran, with particular focus on senior officials responsible for violence, human rights abuses, arbitrary detention and executions without due process.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government imposes and implements Australian autonomous sanctions as a matter of foreign policy when it is in our national interest.

Since September 2022, the Government has imposed three tranches of thematic human rights (Magnitsky-style) sanctions on Iranian persons and entities involved in the arrest, detention and ill-treatment of Mahsa 'Jina' Amini, the crackdowns on protesters, and the continued oppression of the people of Iran [announced 10 December 2022, 1 February 2023 and 20 March 2023].

These sanctions target 36 persons and 17 entities and include some of the most serious perpetrators of human rights abuses and violations since protests began on 16 September 2022. They include a range of senior Iranian administrative, military, law enforcement and security figures, including individuals within the IRGC.

Under Australia's thematic human rights sanctions framework, the Minister for Foreign Affairs may designate a person or entity if the Minister is satisfied the person or entity has engaged in, has been responsible for, or has been complicit in an act that constitutes a serious violation or a serious abuse of a person's:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is also required to obtain the agreement of the Attorney- General and consult any other Ministers as appropriate.

On 6 July 2023 the Iran autonomous sanctions framework was amended to include new criteria which would allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs to sanction persons and entities, involved in:

These changes will ensure that Australia is able to more quickly and effectively respond to human rights abuses and violations in Iran, as well as Iran's destabilising activities abroad.

Consistent with longstanding practice, the Government does not speculate publicly on potential sanctions.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends the use of sanctions to target Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated individuals and entities responsible for malicious cyber activity against Australia.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government imposes and implements Australian autonomous sanctions as a matter of foreign policy when it is in our national interest.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs may list a person or entity if they are satisfied the person or entity has caused, attempted to cause, or assisted with causing, a significant cyber incident or has otherwise been complicit in causing or attempting to cause a significant cyber incident.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs may also consider whether the conduct of the person or entity was malicious and in the case of a cyber incident that has occurred, whether the incident involved action that: destroyed, degraded or rendered unavailable an essential service or critical infrastructure; resulted in the loss of life or caused serious risk of loss of life; resulted in theft of intellectual property, trade secrets or confidential business information for the purposes of gaining a competitive advantage; or interfered with a political or governmental process, a political right or duty, or the functions or operations of a parliament.

Australia works on a case-by-case basis to consider all relevant factors in imposing all sanctions, including cyber sanctions. Consistent with longstanding practice, the Government does not speculate publicly on potential sanctions.

Australia works closely with like-minded partners to coordinate sanctions where it is in our national interest to do so.

The Australian Government notes that sanctions are not our only choice, and rarely the first choice. The Australian Government makes judgements as to what is the right approach at the right time, in line with our national interests. In September 2022, Australia made a joint cybersecurity advisory to highlight continued malicious cyber activity by advanced persistent threat (APT) actors that the authoring agencies assessed were affiliated with the Iranian Government's IRGC.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government take the necessary steps to formally categorise the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an organisation involved in supporting and facilitating terrorism.

Response:

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The power to specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code was established by the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002. Under the Criminal Code, a terrorist organisation is an organisation that:

Under the Criminal Code, the Governor-General may, on advice, make regulations listing a terrorist organisation.

As noted in its submission to this inquiry on 31 January 2023, the Attorney-General's Department is of the view that, as an organ of a nation state, the IRGC is not the kind of entity that is covered by the terrorist organisation provisions in the Criminal Code.

The Australian Government is focused on taking meaningful steps to put pressure on the IRGC. On 10 December 2022, 1 February and 20 March 2023, Australia imposed three packages of thematic human rights (Magnitsky-style) sanctions which include 27 IRGC- linked individuals and 21 IRGC-linked entities. These sanctions build upon existing sanctions imposed by Australia on the IRGC, including UN Security Council-mandated sanctions since 2006 and autonomous sanctions since 2008. Under these autonomous sanctions frameworks, Australia has imposed targeted financial sanctions on the IRGC as a whole since 2010.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that Australia should minimise relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran to the greatest extent possible in recognition of the appalling behaviour of the regime.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Australia has maintained a longstanding bilateral relationship with Iran, including an embassy in Tehran since 1968, because it is in our national interests to do so. It has never been an endorsement of the Iranian regime. Embassies and diplomatic staff are essential to maintain official channels of communication between governments.

Our diplomatic presence in Tehran enables us to provide consular services to Australian citizens and make direct representations to the Iranian Government on issues of concern. This includes Iran's threats and attacks against our friends and allies in the Middle East, its destabilising activities in the region and the human rights situation in Iran.

The Australian Government has taken steps to limit Australia's engagement with Iran where it is in our interests to do so.

As an example, in April 2023, the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to state and territory governments, Australian public universities and university peak bodies, encouraging these entities to put on hold any existing cooperation with Iranian entities and to avoid engaging in any new initiatives. The Minister also asked state and territory governments to relay this information to local councils within their jurisdiction.

Australia will continue to engage with the Iranian Government when it is in our interests to do so.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increase transparency and better inform the Australian public about the status of our diplomatic relations with the Islamic

Republic of Iran regime, as well as our security concerns in relation to the regime's behaviour relating to cybercrime, hostage diplomacy and threats to, and intimidation of, Australian residents.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government has been transparent regarding both the status of our diplomatic relationship with Iran and our response to the human rights abuses occurring in Iran.

We have been active and consistent in our public condemnation of the Iranian regime's egregious human rights violations. This includes public statements from the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, as well as at officials level in multilateral forums, and direct representations to Iranian officials in Iran and the Iranian Chargé d'Affaires in Australia to exert pressure on the regime.

The Prime Minister publicly condemned the crackdown by Iranian authorities, expressing his abhorrence at the actions of the Iranian Government in Parliament on 9 November 2022. On 26 October 2022, Prime Minister called on Iran to respect the rights of peaceful protesters and expressing support for Iranian women and girls.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke to her Iranian counterpart in a phone call on 22 March 2023 in which she expressed Australia's condemnation of Iran's brutal crackdown on protests, execution of protesters and oppression of women and minorities. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also conveyed Australia's concerns over foreign interference and made it clear that we will not tolerate surveillance or harassment of Iranian-Australians.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided regular updates to the Senate on Australia's actions in response to Iran's human rights abuses, including on 10, 21, 22, 28 November 2022, and 7, 16 February, and 8 March 2023.

Furthermore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made numerous public comments and statements, and issued social media messages expressing her concern with the ongoing situation in Iran and condemning the Iranian regime's horrific repression of protests, including its disturbing use of the death penalty.

On 16 December 2022, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, along with her Canadian and New Zealand counterparts, released a joint-statement condemning Iran's imposition of the death penalty and calling on Iran to immediately establish a moratorium to halt all executions. On 20 October 2022, the Minister for Foreign Affairs delivered a video statement to a meeting of women Foreign Ministers, chaired by Canadian Foreign Minister Joly condemning the

authorities' crackdown and supporting Iranian women and girls. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also issued a joint statement on 27 September 2022 with the Minister for Women, Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher, condemning the violent crackdown on protesters.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that any Iranian officials in Australia considered to be involved in intimidation, threats, or monitoring of Australians be expelled.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government is deeply concerned by reports of protesters and their families being harassed and intimidated. The Minister for Foreign Affairs raised this issue directly with her Iranian counterpart in a phone conversation on 22 March 2023. DFAT also raised this issue with the Iranian Chargé d'Affaires on several occasions.

The Department of Home Affairs is working with the community to conduct targeted engagement on foreign interference. The multi-agency CFI Taskforce leads the operational response to espionage and foreign interference threat and works to identify, investigate, and disrupt attempts and acts of foreign interference.

On the 14 February 2023, the Minister for Home Affairs, in a public address on foreign interference, specifically called out Iran and provided details of an instance of foreign interference in Australia by the Iranian regime. She reiterated that Australia absolutely will not tolerate, under any circumstances, attempts by foreign regimes to disrupt peaceful protests, or try to perpetrate violence or suppress specific views being expressed. The Minister for Home Affairs also clearly stated that the Australian Government will not tolerate hostile acts in the form of surveillance, harassment or intimidation against individuals here in Australia. The Australian Government will continue to defend our democracy and the right of any person in Australia to protest and express their views lawfully, just as we stand up for the rights of those to do so elsewhere.

Regarding the expulsion of Iranian officials in Australia, the Government considers embassies and diplomatic officials to be essential for maintaining official channels of communication between governments. Our diplomatic relationship allows us to make direct representations to the Iranian Government on issues of concern, including the human rights situation in Iran, threats and attacks against our friends and allies in the region and Iran's other destabilising activities in the region, including support for armed proxies.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increase the intake of Iranians under various visa programs, with a particular focus on women, girls and persecuted minorities seeking to escape the IRI regime. Iranians in Australia on temporary visas who cannot safely return to Iran due to the current crisis and policies of the IRI should not be required to do so.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Australia's Humanitarian Program operates flexibly to respond effectively to evolving humanitarian situations and global resettlement needs, and the Department of Home Affairs will continue to closely monitor the situation in Iran. Any person, including Iranian nationals, who believe they meet the requirements for a humanitarian visa and wishes to seek

Australia's assistance, can make an application. Each application is considered on its individual merit using current and comprehensive information on circumstances in the relevant country.

Consistent with the approach adopted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Australia prioritises resettlement of vulnerable cohorts within the refugee population including women and children, ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+ and other identified minority groups. Iranian nationals have consistently been in the top ten offshore resettlement caseloads over the last five program years.

Australia is committed to its international obligations set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party. Australia does not return individuals to situations where they face persecution or a real risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary deprivation of life or the application of the death penalty. Iranian nationals who are in Australia on another temporary visa, such as a student or visitor visa, and are seeking protection, can apply for a Permanent Protection visa (Subclass 866).

Some temporary visas may have condition 8503 imposed, which prevents visa holders from applying for most temporary and permanent visas while in Australia. This condition does not prevent a person from applying for a Protection visa. Additionally, this condition may be waived where applicants can demonstrate there has been a change in circumstances since the grant of their initial visa, and the circumstances that have developed are compelling and compassionate.

On 13 February 2023, the Government announced a permanent visa pathway to existing Temporary Protection visa (TPV) and Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) holders. From 14 February 2023, more than 19,000 existing TPV and SHEV holders and applicants who have previously been found to engage Australia's protection obligations will be eligible to either apply for a permanent Subclass 851 Resolution of Status (RoS) visa or will have their existing on-hand TPV/SHEV application converted to a RoS visa application.

The majority of existing TPV and SHEV holders are expected to be granted a RoS visa within 12 months of processing commencement. Around 32 percent of the TPV/SHEV caseload are Iranian citizens.

Iranian nationals are able to pursue other migration pathways to enter, or remain, in Australia depending on their circumstances, such as through the Family stream, and Skilled visa categories. This includes the Skilled Refugee Labour Agreement Pilot Program. Under this pilot program, endorsed Australian businesses are able to utilise a Labour Agreement to sponsor skilled refugees and displaced persons (including those from Iran) to live and work in Australia. For further information, see the Skilled Refugee Labour Agreement Pilot Program webpage on the Home Affairs website.

I thank the Senate and I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

On this day one year ago, 22-year-old Mahsa 'Jina' Amini was arrested and detained by the Iranian regime's notorious morality police for her alleged noncompliance with mandatory hijab laws. She would never return home from police custody. Mahsa Amini's death ignited widespread protests across Iran. From Abadan to Zahedan, Iranians of all ages, ethnicities and genders took to the streets, demanding respect for their fundamental freedoms and basic human rights. We witnessed courageous women and girls fiercely chanting, 'Zan, zendegi. azadi'—'Woman, life, freedom'—a rallying cry for a movement that echoed and reverberated locally and globally. People protested in cities across the world. In Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Hobart, Adelaide and here in Canberra, Australians stood in solidarity with protesting Iranians and the Australian-Iranian community, whom I acknowledge here today. Bravely defying a system that suppresses female voices, the women and girls of Iran danced in the streets and demonstrated in schools and universities. Despite intimidation from the regime, shopkeepers closed their stores and employees went on strike.

But, rather than addressing and responding to people's demands, the regime doubled down on repression, and the whole world and all here have been shocked and outraged by the brutal tactics employed to quell protests. We have heard harrowing accounts of abhorrent violence against women committed by Iran's security forces. Distressing scenes of lethal force, beatings, spraying of teargas, firing of metal and rubber pellets, and mass incarcerations—these have filled our TV screens and circulated on social media. Hundreds of protesters were killed. Thousands more were arrested. And we know that minority communities were singled out for particularly harsh treatment. We were horrified by the brutality against the Baloch community on what has been known as Bloody Friday, and the use of military force to subdue Kurdish protesters, including those in Kurdistan province, where Mahsa 'Jina' Amini hailed from. The regime would later employ the death penalty against protesters to instil fear in the population. Draconian sentences were issued with no regard for due process. Mobile services, phone services and the internet were restricted to silence the voices of protesters. But the regime failed. Iranian voices were heard, and we responded.

From the beginning of the regime's crackdown the Albanese government has worked strategically to build pressure on Iran, and we were at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women. Australia co-sponsored and advocated for the successful Human Rights Council resolution, establishing an independent investigation into human rights violations in Iran. We have taken steps to limit Australia's engagement with Iran where it is in our interest to do so. In April I wrote to state and territory governments and to universities, encouraging them to pause existing cooperation with Iranian entities and to avoid engaging in new initiatives. We have consistently and forcefully raised our concerns directly with Iran. I have spoken with my counterpart and directly expressed Australia's condemnation of Iran's brutal crackdown on protests, execution of protesters, and oppression of women and minorities. My department has repeatedly summoned Iran's representative to Australia while our diplomats in Tehran have made representations directly to the regime. We continue to call out Iran internationally in concert with partners and in multilateral fora, where we use every opportunity available to us to hold Iran to account for its egregious human rights violations.

Earlier this year I asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to expand the scope of the Iran autonomous sanctions regime to specifically capture the oppression of women and girls in Iran and the general oppression of the population. The time to use these new criteria is now, so I am imposing fresh sanctions on four persons and three entities. They include: the spokesperson for Iran's law enforcement forces; an individual responsible for publishing intimidating statements and threatening warnings towards Iranian women and girls who are deemed to be noncompliant with veiling laws; and the Iranian Cyber Police, an entity central to obstructing freedom of expression through restricting internet activity in Iran.

These designations build on the three tranches of sanctions I've already imposed since the crackdown began, which includes sanctions on 27 IRGC officials and 21 IRGC entities—that is, the Iranian IRGC officials. This follows nine years of coalition government during which no new sanctions were imposed on Iran. That is the case: no sanctions were imposed on Iran under the last government. Now, some of the government's actions are captured in the response to the report of the Senate inquiry on Iran, which I have tabled today.

I thank those in the Iranian-Australian community who came forward to share their experiences with the committee. I've had the privilege of meeting with some of them. Their stories are hard to hear for anyone of compassion. Their stories deepened our understanding and our sorrow at what has been taking place in Iran. And our response underscores Australia's resolute support for the human rights of the people of Iran and confirms that the Albanese government has taken stronger action against Iran on human rights than has any previous Australian government—although of course, regrettably, the egregious human rights abuses in Iran didn't just start last year.

Our response highlights the tools we've used to take action and reinforces our determination to take decisive and targeted action to hold Iran accountable. But I will say this: while the protests may have subsided, the suffering has not. Women and girls in Iran still face systemic persecution. Sexist discrimination continues to be entrenched in Iranian law and in practice. Authorities routinely prosecute and harass those who advocate for the rights of women and girls. A few weeks ago, ahead of this upcoming anniversary, Iran arrested over a dozen family members of human rights activists. And as we gather here today Iranian MPs are pushing for a hijab-and-chastity law that would continue to punish women and girls for any violation of the country's modesty laws. These are just some of the reminders of the entrenched discrimination that has such profound impacts on Iranian women in society. It is the same malignant discrimination that was responsible for Mahsa's death last September. Instead of alleging that Mahsa Amini died of natural causes, Iran should hold to account those directly responsible for her death. And instead of repeating the lies that foreign forces were behind protests, Iran should take responsibility for its actions and listen to the voices of its own people.

I'm sure we all, regardless of our political differences, would together call on Iran to listen to the voices of its people—women, life, freedom. I thank the Senate.

The Iranian-Australian community will be devastated with this response and the refusal of the government to accept the vast majority of the recommendations of the Senate inquiry into the human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. It is staggering that the government would wait seven months to release this response to a committee inquiry that was undertaken urgently to respond to a crisis situation. And the government has waited until the week of the anniversary of Mahsa Jina Amini's death to refuse to accept these recommendations, which were based on more than 1,000 submissions received and a huge amount of expert evidence.

On 30 April this year, three months after the Senate committee handed down our report, a coalition of Iranian-Australian community groups and a long list of members of the diaspora community wrote to the Prime Minister and to the foreign minister. In that letter they said: 'We refer you to 12 actions recommended by the Senate References Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in conclusion of its public inquiry in February 2023. These recommendations are informed by over 1,000 submissions from individuals, Australian and international experts, universities, and community organisations. Also backing them are nearly 55,000 signatures on our parliament petition and weeks of continual protests. That petition said: 'We, Australians and members of the Iranian-Australian community, stand in full support of the recommendations of the Senate's report and demand nothing short of full and prompt implementation of all 12. We appreciate that officials of your government often highlight the actions taken thus far, but the gap between the current and wanted positions is still deep and wide.'

The letter goes on: 'Dear Prime Minister, our sisters and brothers in Iran are keeping the fight up against the evil of the Islamic Republic, and we have sworn to stand by them until the end. Rest assured that we will not tire, nor be distracted. Words and excuses do not go a long way when crime against humanity is at stake. Disassociate yourself, your government and our nation from the Islamic Republic corrupt criminals. Stand on the right side of history. Implement the 12 recommendations.'

This is just one of numerous letters and emails from the Iranian-Australian community, urging the government to act on this report and to implement the recommendations. I'm absolutely staggered that the government hasn't accepted all of these recommendations, but I'm particularly staggered that they haven't accepted this one:

The committee recommends that any Iranian officials in Australia considered to be involved in intimidation, threats, or monitoring of Australians be expelled.

How can the government not accept that recommendation, when the government and the Australian public know that intimidation and harassment of Australians is occurring, and has even been publicly attributed to the Iranian regime?

The home affairs minister said that this will not be tolerated, and yet now the government has not accepted a recommendation that any Iranian officials involved in harassment or intimidation of Australians be expelled. The government hasn't accepted recommendations to minimise relations with the IR regime, or even the recommendation to increase transparency and to better inform the Australian public of the status of our diplomatic relations with the IR regime and the security risks that represents relating to cybercrime, hostage diplomacy and threats and intimidation of Australians. Iranian Australians have been so brave in speaking up and urging this parliament and this government to act. They know they're taking a risk to their personal safety in opposing the IR regime by turning up to rallies, making submissions and writing letters. It is devastating that the government's response accepts just two of the 12 recommendations in full and one in part.

As I said yesterday in this place in the debate on the anniversary of Mahsa Amini's death, this comes at a time when the IR regime is successfully growing its influence, expanding its state-sponsored terror activities, extracting billions of dollars in ransom—which was released to them today—and continuing to get closer to developing a nuclear bomb. I'm reminded again of the words of Sydney Peace Prize recipient Nazanin Boniadi who, in an address to parliamentarians earlier this year, said that for 44 years we have tried the same policies and expected a different outcome: that's the definition of insanity. This response looks and feels like a document which the IR regime can live with.

I also want to rise to take note of the response to the inquiry report Human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. The government, as we heard from the minister, does support the overarching principles of the report and the work that the committee undertook late last year—and, obviously, earlier this year as well. This was very crucial work in helping inform government about holding the Iranian regime to account for its shocking human rights abuses towards its own people, including the violent crackdowns that we saw across the media and its treatment of Mahsa Jina Amini.

The government, as acknowledged by the minister, does not accept the committee's findings that Australia continues to lag behind other nations in responding to human rights abuses in Iran. The government has been consistent, proactive and assertive in holding the regime to account for its gross violations of human rights and has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran's repression of protesters, and its treatment of women and girls in that country.

Australia has been integral in building pressure internationally, and I think that's probably going to be the key focus here. Australia alone can't solve the problems that we've been seeing, sadly, but we have to work with our international partners, our allies and friends, to build that pressure on Iran to change its attitudes and how it treats women and children. Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women, and it has cosponsored and advocated for the establishment of an independent fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations in Iran.

I want to thank the many individuals and organisations that made a contribution to the inquiry that led to the report of the committee. I deeply acknowledge the lived experience and courage of the many people who came to the committee. Senator Chandler and I heard invaluable evidence in that inquiry. The violent measures employed by the Iranian government against those who stand up to this oppression, particularly women and girls, is abhorrent. As we discuss this issue in the chamber, we must keep at the front of our minds the extraordinary courage of those in Iran and abroad who continue to express their fierce opposition to the oppressive practices of the Iranian government. This opposition often comes at great risk to them and their families, as we heard in the inquiry. This Saturday marks the first anniversary of Jina's death three days after she was arrested by Iran's morality police for allegedly breaking a dress code. Her arrest, detention, ill treatment and death have been a source of much anger and resolve for all those who stand up against oppression, particularly the Iranian community here in Australia.

The government here in Australia has taken more action than any previous government to hold that regime to account for its use of violence to deny human rights to its own people. This has included the imposition of Magnitsky style targeted financial sanctions on Iranian entities and additional financial sanctions and travel bans on individuals. As we heard from Minister Wong earlier, additional people have been added to the sanctions list today. These individuals include four members of Iran's morality police responsible for the death of Jina. Sanction targets also include senior law enforcement, political and military figures, including within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, involved into the violent crackdown on protests. Further sanctions were applied against Iranian individuals and entities involved in the production of drones and their supply to Russia. These Iranian made drones have been used by Russia to target Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. The government today rightly announced that it is building on its unprecedented action against Iran on human rights with further sanctions. This follows amendments to Australia's autonomous sanctions framework to ensure our sanctions can capture more Iranian actors, including those involved in the oppression of women and girls. Sanctioned individuals include the police spokesperson for Iran's law enforcement forces, who has repeatedly made intimidating and threatening statements towards Iranian women and girls for violating their veiling laws. Targeted entities include Iran's cyber police, which is central to obstructing freedom of expression through restricting internet activity in Iran, and Press TV, the state backed TV channel which has broadcast the forced confessions of many Iranians and dual nationals who are detained and tried under politically motivated judicial procedures.

I am glad to hear today that the minister has made a number of announcements, including tabling the government's response. The fact is that the government has been at the forefront of holding Iran to account and has taken stronger action against the Iranian government on human rights than any government in the past. I want to express my solidarity with the Iranian people in their struggle against oppression and thank all the individuals and organisations who played a very important and significant role in the committee's inquiry.

The Greens would like to begin this contribution by acknowledging the members of the Australian Iranian community who provided testimony and accounts of the current reality in Iran. For me, as an active member of that inquiry, it was some of the most powerful evidence that we have taken as a committee, and it was absolutely instrumental in forming the clear and decisive view that emerged amongst us as members that there needed to be decisive, swift action by the Australian government in solidarity with the people of Iran. The community have lobbied parliamentarians since the moment of 'Jina' Mahsa Amini's murder at the hands of the Iranian authorities, and they should be proud that all parliamentarians across parties are aware of Iran's human rights abuses and the impact of the regime upon the community. They have worked with a tireless ferocity to ensure that their government acts tangibly to support those pushing for democracy and to safeguard members of the community from those representatives of the regime here in Australia.

At this point I really need to acknowledge the pain and emotional labour that those that gave evidence to the committee bore to share their stories and evidence and the effort and energy of families, often seized by a soul-deep terror, an all-consuming fear of what is happening to their family members in Iran—and yet they have continued to campaign. They have continued to push. They have continued to turn up out the front of this building to speak the names of their family members even as those family members were awaiting the death penalty. Even as the clock was counting down, they were out front of this building, in the corridors, advocating, pushing. They are an example to all of us in this place. We in the Australian Greens remain in the most profound solidarity with you. You will never need for a moment to attempt to persuade or cajole us into action. We are there with you. We will organise with you for women, for life and for freedom in Iran and for the protection of your human rights here in Australia.

In the additional comments to this report to which the government is responding today, the Greens supported all recommendations of the report and called on the government to act on them urgently, and yet it has taken months for the government to issue this formal response. We welcome the sanctions announced today and we welcome, finally, the response of the government to this report. Throughout the time the inquiry was held, the Australian government was forced by community pressure to implement targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime, an action the community had been calling for since the moment of 'Jina' Mahsa Amini's murder.

Now, sadly and deeply frustratingly, these enactions were late. This was critically observed by the final report of the committee. The Department of Foreign Affairs, the minister and the government did not act swiftly enough. I know, from the many conversations that I have had with the Iranian Australian community, about this repeated line from the minister and the government that they have taken more action on Iran than any previous government. We heard it in the minister's speech. 'We've taken these measures when the previous mob did nothing.' Well, when your bar of success is nothing for nine years, I don't think you're in a very strong position to celebrate your action now.

Let's place this in context. 'Jina' Mahsa Amini was murdered on 16 September 2022. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau announced Canada's intention to sanction Iranian officials after 10 days. In 10 days, Canada took this action. In comparison, Australia's targeted sanctions were not applied until 10 December, close to three months later. It may well be that the department and the minister intend in future to act more speedily in response to such developing international human rights concerns. I very much hope that that is the plan, but it does no good to anyone to pretend that the reaction time was appropriate or acceptable, when it was and is not.

Once applied, initially the sanctions were limited in scope and did not go as far as was needed in the attempt to deter the regime. Further, the European parliament called on its council to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. The United States and Canada have made this designation. Yet we see today from the government a continued refusal to do so. In the face of this compelling international precedent, the best the department can offer is: 'It is not of our view—it is not of the Attorney-General's view—that this would be an appropriate course of action.' That is not a good-enough excuse to ignore such compelling international precedent.

Iranians continue to rise up against the regime, to push for democracy and the protection of the rights of women and girls. The Australian Greens would like to highlight the role of women in boldly and courageously raising their voices against a regime so desperate to silence them. They have been the drivers of activism and lobbying and protest, despite the Iranian regime enacting egregious measures to minimise and control the impact that they were having and, indeed, to undertake violent and the most horrific forms of state sanctioned tyranny against its citizens. The system of law and order which Iran implements is one of the most authoritarian, violent and violating systems of law and order in the world, and the absolute razor edge of this regime is felt by women and girls, particularly those from Kurdish communities.

I will also take this opportunity to comment on the Iran's abhorrent involvement in hostage-taking as a practice of diplomacy. The act of hostage-taking must be disincentivised so as to prevent more people from being put at risk. Placing targeted sanctions on individuals pursuing this activity in Iran would send a strong message of Australia's future intention to protect our citizens from being arbitrarily detained, wherever they may be in the world. We would also like to take this opportunity to express once again our support for the request of Kylie Moore-Gilbert and others who have been wrongfully detained overseas that DFAT establish a special envoy for arbitrarily detained Australians. There must be a focus upon this issue from the department.

We need to learn from the Iranian Australian community. We need to hear their calls for action. We need to be open and honest about the failures of this government in acting quickly enough, and we need to make reparations for that failure by continuing to escalate the tangible actions that this government takes against the Iranian regime. We need to finally do that which the Iranian Australian community has been asking this government to do. List the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. It is within the power to do so and must be done—women, life, freedom.

Question agreed to.

Firstly, I'd like to thank those senators who've engaged with and contributed to this important debate on improving housing outcomes for Australians. The three bills that form the housing legislative package are significant milestones in implementing the government's broader housing agenda, which will support improved access to safe, secure and affordable housing for all Australians. The government is committed to implementing these important housing reforms as an immediate priority. Establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund as soon as possible will allow it to begin generating returns and providing much-needed funds for social, affordable and acute housing projects across the country.

The government is also committed to ongoing evaluation of the housing measures contained in this package. This will include ongoing engagement with the community to consider how the government can deliver the best housing outcomes for Australians. I'd like to thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for its inquiry into these bills and note the committee's recommendation that the Senate pass the bills.

The government has agreed to ensure that $500 million will be disbursed from the HAFF in each financial year from 2024-25 onwards. This provides further certainty that long-term commitments will be met regardless of the earnings generated from the investments of the fund. The government has also agreed to apply indexation to the disbursement amount from 2029-30 onwards. This will protect the real purchasing power of disbursements from 2029-30 onwards and deliver improved housing outcomes for Australians over the long term.

Additionally, the government has agreed to amend the bill to provide flexibility for the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer, as the responsible ministers, to increase the disbursement amount in the future by making a determination via a disallowable instrument. The responsible ministers will also have the ability to apply indexation to the new disbursement amount through the determination. Consultation with the future fund board of guardians will be required before any changes are made to the disbursement amount by way of legislative instrument.

The government has also agreed to bring forward the first statutory review of the Housing Australia Future Fund to 31 December 2026, in response to recommendations from Senator Pocock and the Greens. This will enhance transparency by providing an earlier opportunity to provide an update on the fund's performance and outcomes.

In addition to this the government will seek to ensure that homes delivered under the fund comply with nationally agreed standards on accessibility and energy efficiency through the Housing Australia Investment Mandate Direction, which will guide the types of projects the HAFF can support. The investment mandate will be made publicly available shortly on the Treasury website. As with the draft bill, there will be a period for consultation, and interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to make submissions before the direction is finalised.

The government has agreed to amendments, moved by the Hon. Helen Haines MP in the House of Representatives, to include regional, rural and remote housing policy as a relevant field for the purposes of appointment to the council and also to include the impact of geographical location on housing supply and affordability and on the demand for affordable housing as a matter the council may consider when performing its functions.

The government has also agreed to the amendments, moved by Senator David Pocock, to include accessibility for people with disability as a relevant field for the purposes of appointment to the council.

The current drafting of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 may restrict the ability of NHFIC to enter into long-term contracts that are required to deliver dwellings under the HAFF and the National Housing Accord. As such, the government is amending the treasury laws amendment bill to add an amendment to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act to provide the flexibility for the minister, through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation investment mandate, to direct that the NHFIC is not required to hold capital and reserves against specified types of liabilities or loans. This is a sensible and appropriate amendment that preserves the intent of the original provision in the act while not unduly restricting the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's ability to enter into long-term contracts to deliver dwellings under the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord. This package represents a significant step forward in implementing the government's ambitious housing agenda, establishing the frameworks and long-term commitments needed to deliver better outcomes for Australians experiencing housing stress and homelessness.

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund. Distributions from the fund will support the delivery of social and affordable homes, including 30,000 new dwellings over its first five years of operation, as well as helping address acute housing needs for people most at need in our society.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as an independent statutory advisory body with independence a central feature of its operation. The council will inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on housing supply and affordability. Establishing the council will ensure that the Commonwealth can play a leadership role in improving housing supply and affordability.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renames the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation as Housing Australia and expands its activities to support the delivery of social and affordable dwellings under the Housing Australia Future Fund. It also establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and provides certainty to the community housing sector by extending Housing Australia's legislated Commonwealth guarantee until at least 30 June 2028. I commend the bills to the Senate.

The question is that the Greens' second reading amendment on sheet 2109, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

I move my second reading amendment on sheet 2107:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Albanese Government to:

(a) recognise:

(i) that Australia is already the fourth quickest builder of housing in the entire OECD;

(ii) the decision to allow over 1 million arrivals from net immigration and student visas in 12 months is the primary driver of the housing crisis;

(iii) no amount of public expenditure on housing can fix the crisis facing Australians without significant change to the demand side of housing economics; and

(b) abandon its irresponsible immigration intake in order to address the housing crisis".

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

A second reading amendment was circulated by Senator Thorpe, but, as she is not here, someone would need to seek leave to move it on her behalf.

by leave—I move Senator Thorpe's second reading amendment on sheet 1871:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to commence urgent negotiations with state and territory governments in relation to the implementation of the following reforms:

(a) a moratorium on no grounds evictions for tenants who cannot pay rent;

(b) the expansion of culturally safe tenancy support programs for First Nations people in all states and territories, modelled on Aboriginal Housing Victoria's 'More Than A Landlord' program;

(c) a moratorium on the sale of public housing;

(d) a moratorium on the sale of Crown land until a Treaty with First Nations people has been negotiated;

(e) universal access to public housing, over the long term, through buyback schemes and building of quality public housing;

(f) establishing a mechanism to support democratically controlled co-operative housing, including direct funding to assist people in acquiring or building housing under a co-operative model;

(g) establishing a co-investment scheme for community housing tenants to have the option of taking over ownership, possibly through a co-operative housing scheme, with the aim of converting community housing to supported co- operative housing, and giving tenants the option to select an alternative;

(h) building the capacity of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Housing sector, in line with Closing the Gap Priority Reform 2 and in partnership with First Nations communities, to ensure housing remains at a high standard, including through:

(i) the implementation of training and employment programs, and

(ii) the funding of ongoing maintenance;

(i) developing a specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing schedule of works, overseen by the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association, to track, monitor and evaluate the impacts and outcome of investments in First Nations housing;

(j) developing cultural principles to be embedded within all government housing frameworks and plans and enacted by governments and housing providers; and

(k) the monitoring and evaluation of adherence to cultural principles by governments and housing providers".

Question negatived.

The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

With the concurrence of the Senate, the statement of reasons accompanying the request circulating this bill will be incorporated in Hansard immediately of the request to which they relate.

I table four supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to the bills.

The opposition has already made their position clear in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, and that is that we're not supporting it for the reasons that have been articulated on many occasions. But I am particularly keen to understand from the government exactly where the Housing Affordability Future Fund and associated bills actually are in terms of the financial commitments and the other commitments that have been made by the government in order for them to be able to seek the support of the necessary number of people in this chamber for the passage of these bills. Clearly, they have been able to do that, otherwise we wouldn't be standing here today.

We started off during the election with a $10 billion fund that was supposed to generate $500 million per year to go towards certain housing. We're not exactly sure about what that housing is because there doesn't appear to be any definition in the bill about what particular types of housing products actually are. Subsequent to the election commitment of a $10 billion off-balance-sheet, financially engineered, weird fund, we've seen a $2 billion commitment to the states and territories that was made some time ago in relation to housing, and this week we saw that the government has agreed to an additional $1 billion package in order to secure the Greens' support for this. So we now have a $13 billion housing fund. As we stand here today, we haven't even passed this legislation through this place. We have seen a 30 per cent blowout in the cost of this fund, and the legislation has not even been voted on yet.

What I am very keen to understand from the Minister is: is $13 billion all that has been committed to the passage of this piece of legislation, or have there been other deals done that we are unaware of? The reason I'm asking that is that I noticed yesterday and the day before, when the Greens made their statements publicly about their intent to now support this particular bill, that the Greens shadow housing spokesperson representative—or whatever they call them in the Greens—Mr Chandler-Mather made some comments in relation to some commitments he was seeking in relation to rent-capping. The first question I'd like to ask the Minister is: has the government made any commitments in relation to supporting rent-capping in order to get the support of the Australian Greens for the passage of this particular piece of legislation through this place?

I think the simplest way of answering the question is to say that the additional commitment that has been made over the course of the last few days and week is an additional $1 billion. The commitment that the government made earlier this year was in the context of the national cabinet discussions, and that was very public. I think everybody understands what the nature of that commitment was.

Unfortunately, I don't think everybody does understand the nature of some of the deals that have been done, because, I've got to say, transparency doesn't seem to be a hallmark of this government. Whatever dirty deals that were done with the Greens in order to support this, I note that the Minister said the support was a $1 billion package. I wonder if you are able to provide details of what that $1 billion package actually looks like so the Australian public can get some sort of understanding about what the government is prepared to pay for in order to get these particular bills through this place.

It's an additional $1 billion to NHFIC—which will become Housing Australia—which will be used to build more affordable homes.

I'm also keen to understand if any other deals have been done with any other crossbenchers for their support? As an example, and I will be specific, did the government make a deal with Senator David Pocock? Is the ACT receiving any additional funding over and above what their pro rata funding would otherwise have been from this fund?

The only arrangements the government has made will be reflected in the amendments that are before the Senate. The government has made a range of agreements in terms of issues like accessibility issues that will be reflected in the amendments and the voting position of the government in relation to those questions. Beyond the publicly available measures that the government has identified, there are no other measures—and not in relation to particular states, beyond what has been publicly available.

STON (—) (): Just to be really clear and to get it on the record: did the government make any agreement or come to any arrangement with the Australian Greens in relation to inheritance taxes?

No.

Did the government make any agreement or come to any arrangement with the Greens in order to get their support in relation to taxing on franking credits?

No.

enator RUSTON (—) (): Did the government make any agreement or come to any arrangement with the Greens to gain their support on superannuation taxes?

I sense there's a pattern developing here, but no.

That's really good news, because clearly the Australian public deserve to know the basis behind any of these deals. But obviously the proof of the accuracy of those responses will be in any decisions that get taken into the future in relation to those really important issues. We know the Australian Labor Party went to the election making a whole heap of promises to the Australian public about their behaviour, and subsequent to the election we have only seen them change their mind and backflip on so many of these things. The Australian public should be very concerned about the willingness of this government, what it's prepared to do, when it needs to get some piece of legislation through.

The reality is that as we're standing here today we've got a piece of legislation that we know is faulty—and I'll ask some questions of the minister in relation to that in a minute. We know it's a really dodgy piece of legislation, because if the government was really determined to put through and provide additional funding to this type of housing then why on Earth is it not on the balance sheet? That is the question every Australian taxpayer should be asking: why have they gone and engineered this weird financial instrument, which is only ever used in quite extreme circumstances like the future fund? Why on Earth have they put it off balance sheet, particularly at a time when they're making a whole heap of commitments in relation to the amount of money that's going to be expended each year as a result of this particular fund? Yet anybody who's done economics 101 would understand that what the government is promising here is not able to be delivered.

To that end, Minister: during your second reading concluding remarks you made a commitment that $500 million would be disbursed every year, plus indexation. First of all, I believe it was a funding cap of $500 million. In your contribution, Minister, you were quite clear that $500 million would be disbursed every year. So, I'm just seeking clarification from you: is it a funding cap of up to $500 million a year? Or is it that, as you said in your second reading statement, $500 million a year plus indexation will be disbursed every year subsequent to 2024?

There was a range of questions in there that went to, firstly, the bona fides of the government's arrangements that have been made in order to collaborate with colleagues on the crossbench to ensure the support of this legislation. The government has been completely transparent about those matters, entirely consistent with the government's approach on not just a range of issues that you raised there but on all the issues. Senators and the public can be absolutely confident that the arrangements that the government has reached are entirely public and entirely transparent. That stands in contrast to the efforts that were made in the passage of pieces of legislation over the course of the last three unhappy governments, and it stands in contrast to the secret arrangements that the Liberals have with the Nationals, which is never revealed. It is kept locked tight in a crypt somewhere over there in somebody's office. So we won't be lectured about transparency in relation to the arrangements here. There will be a series of amendments that will be dealt with by the Senate. The government's voting decisions on that will be entirely public.

I think your second broadly grouped set of questions, Senator Ruston, went to the nature of the fund itself. This is not an unusual arrangement. It's a very similar arrangement to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the National Reconstruction Fund, the medical research fund—I'm not calling it by its proper name, but I think we know the fund that I mean—and the Future Fund established by Mr Costello and Mr Howard. These are all allocations of funds that are designed to earn income in perpetuity, essentially—unless the parliament changes its approach to those funds—and to provide a source of income that is dedicated to a particular public policy purpose. The public policy purpose that is set out here is to build affordable homes to lift the supply of housing for low-income Australians who are experiencing housing stress. That is the public purpose. That is what that income will be allocated to.

In agreement with the crossbench, in order to be absolutely clear about what is going to be provided here, there is a minimum $500 million disbursement. As I've discussed, it may, of course, be more. If the income of the fund is higher, it is open to the fund to allocate more. There are arrangements that are dealt with in the second reading speech that go to the reviews and the capacity of those amounts to be adjusted over time for indexation purposes and other purposes.

I just seek clarity there, Minister: did you say that it would be a minimum of $500 million per year disbursed?

Yes.

I'm keen to understand what would happen in circumstances where the fund doesn't make a profit. Last year, for example, the fund wouldn't have made a profit, based on the information that's been provided in relation to how the fund might work—but we haven't seen the fund's mandate, so we actually are still a bit in the dark about exactly how you're going to run this fund. Minister, we know that there could be a situation where the fund actually loses money. There are quite clearly many opportunities for a fund of this nature not necessarily to make a five per cent return—a net return, because of course we have to pay interest on this fund before we actually start drawing any benefit from it. So I'm keen to understand: what is the mechanism for the guaranteeing of $500 million per year plus indexation? In circumstances where the fund does not generate the necessary $500 million, where is the money coming from?

I just want to check that I'm absolutely clear. You say 'the mechanism', Senator Ruston. The mechanism is that the legislation provides for a minimum $500 million disbursement. The nature of these kinds of funds, of which there are many in Australia and around the world, is that they have investment objectives and are designed to exist for a very long period of time. The investment objectives are set with regard to what is an expected and reasonable rate of return. The government will monitor the operations of this fund closely, as I'm sure the government of the Howard and Costello period monitored the operations of the Future Fund. That fund also had requirements it had to meet in relation to the superannuation obligations that the fund was designed to provide for. Subsequent governments—the Rudd and Gillard governments and the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments—have all had a responsibility to monitor the performance of those funds over time.

Thank you for the history lecture, but I was quite keen to understand something specifically from you, Minister, with specific reference to this particular fund. In the circumstances where the fund does not make a profit sufficient to enable the full $500 million disbursement to be made out of the profits, how will the fund provide those disbursements?

It will provide the minimum disbursements in the event that the rate of return that is anticipated is not met in any given year. That minimum disbursement will be made over the long term. As is the nature of all these funds, the investment objectives will be met over time. That is in the nature of all these funding arrangements. They are not novel, and they're certainly not new to governments of various persuasions that have administered these funds over the course of many decades.

Thank you, Minister, but I don't know that I can be much clearer. How will the funds that are going to be disbursed be provided for in the absence of the fund providing them? Are they going to be disbursed from the $10 billion? Are they going to be provided through other government appropriations or other budgetary mechanisms? If we do not have sufficient profit made in a particular year, where will the funds come from?

The funds will come from the fund. I should say that disbursements will come from the fund, if that's any clearer.

Does that continue to happen if the fund doesn't make a return for a protracted period?

That same question could be directed to a range of these funds that are allocated for these purposes. That is why, indeed, the amount that the government has allocated to the fund is the $10 billion amount. It is designed to be an amount sufficient to meet the publicly stated purpose of the fund—that is, to disburse a minimum of $500 million every year. A significant upfront credit of $10 billion provides an enduring source of funding for social and affordable homes. You would anticipate that the nature of setting investment objectives is that the task of the fund is to meet the investment objectives. It is also true to say that no matter what the investment vehicle is, public or private, that investment objectives are not always met in any given year. That's why, in order to provide clarity here about the fund's capacity to meet its public policy objectives, a $500 million allocation is made.

The fund will leverage the Future Fund Board of Guardians to generate investment returns that can be used to improve housing outcomes for Australians. The existing investment funds have provided consistent and reliable annual disbursements. The Future Fund board has a proven track record of delivering long-term investment returns that have in fact exceeded its investment mandate. This has been delivered with acceptable, but not excessive, risk that can build sustainable investment funds into the future. The Grattan Institute senior economist Brendan Coates said in the Senate inquiry:

… other future funds have continued to disburse moneys even when the fund hasn't given a return in a year.

All of those funds that are disbursed will go to housing every year.

Minister, I'm just wondering about this. You also made a comment during your second reading summing-up speech that the Future Fund's investment mandate will be released shortly. Could you perhaps, first of all, advise when? What is 'shortly'? And will there be any opportunity for any consultation in relation to that investment mandate once it's released?

Sorry, could you repeat the second half of that question?

I'm just keen to understand if the investment mandate is being released in draft form for public consultation, or will it just be released?

or AYRES (—) (): Thank you for repeating that. The draft investment mandate will be released over the course of the coming weeks—not months. It will be in draft form and there will be a consultation process to provide not just visibility of the government intentions in terms of the draft mandate but also an opportunity for stakeholders to engage with the government if there's a view that any amendments ought to be sought.

Minister, to that end, is it possible to provide the modelling that was undertaken by government in determining its position in relation to $500 million being the appropriate disbursement level from the fund? Has that modelling been done, and is it available?

Of course, the decision for a minimum $500 million annual disbursement from next year and the decisions around the investment mandate all come together. The government has sought a range of advice, including about setting an appropriate level to achieve the government 's objective here, which is a minimum of 30,000 homes being built over the course of the next five years. That's the objective, and the government sought a range of advice, as you would expect.

Minister, is there no modelling available to support the decision by the government that $500 million was an appropriate disbursement minimum from a $10 billion fund?

I think a question about the government providing modelling and advice to cabinet meets with a predictable response—I recall asking a similar question a few years ago and meeting what I thought was a stonewall from former Minister Cormann. The government has sought a range of advice in making decisions around the drafting of this legislation in our discussions with the crossbench and stakeholders as the Senate committee proceeded, in order to meet our public policy objectives.

I'm also interested to get clarity on the record about how the government intends to pay the interest bill on the borrowed $10 billion.

It'll just be met in the normal way.

It'd be good, Minister, if you'd actually put on the record that it will be paid from within the fund. So could I seek clarification from you that the interest will be paid from within the fund?

It is clear in the budget that those expenses in relation to providing the $10 billion allocation are provided for in the budget in the normal way, in the way that all other expenditures of the government are provided for in a budget context. Of course, the May budget is a budget in which the government has returned to surplus—not a projected one, but a real one. All of the allocations that the government has made are there for everybody to see in the context of the budget. We didn't project a surplus and then not deliver it; we delivered a surplus and returned most of that surplus to savings, and we've made some prudent allocations to meet the public policy objectives that the government made clear in the election.

In fact, the passage of this legislation through the Senate today would mean, in terms of the substantial commitments that the government made during the course of the election, that we have, despite the trenchant opposition of those opposite, worked our way through all of those election commitments. This is a government that does what it says it was going to do. In fact, in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund, this is a commitment that we made in the context of what was not recognised by the previous government as a problem. We have made a significant commitment here and a significant series of commitments more broadly in terms of our housing policy.

Just so the committee is aware, I'm taking the call back from Senator Ruston. Senator Roberts, I had indicated earlier, and I'll try to oscillate from the other side of the chamber. I'm going to Senator Faruqi, and then I'll come to you.

As we made clear yesterday, the Greens will be supporting the passage of this bill through the Senate after reaching an agreement with the government on an additional $1 billion in immediate funding for public and community housing, which is on top of the $2 billion that we had already forced from this government. Importantly, instead of the government's gamble on the stock market, we also secured an agreement from the government to guarantee a flow of $500 million in annual disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund, to which some of the government amendments before the committee today give effect and which we will be supporting.

I'm also proud that the Greens have been able to push Labor to build these homes to a high disability standard as part of these negotiations. From day one, we have been crystal clear and completely transparent about what we have been asking for to tackle this housing crisis that millions in our community are struggling and suffering under, and the agreements with the government move us in that direction. There is nothing sinister about these agreements, as the opposition seems to imply—probably because they judge everyone from their standard. I also want to make clear that while many of the non-government amendments before the Senate have merit, because of the agreement with the government, we will only be supporting amendments that give effect to that agreement. Finally, as our second reading amendment makes clear, we will continue our fight for a rent freeze and for rent caps. The community movement for renters' rights has grown immensely over the last nine months, and the Greens will not stop until the federal and state Labor governments are forced to respond to the scale of the rental and housing crisis in this country.

Minister, I'm a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. In that capacity, I note that this bill is completely unnecessary. It's not needed. Here's why: if the government cut Australia's immigration intake by just 10 per cent of the current one million arrivals, it would save the building of many more houses than Labor claims this fund will build. The housing crisis will lessen. Instead, we are here dealing with dirty deals done dirt cheap. The deals are cheap for the Greens, yet taxpayers will be paying billions. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the people of Australia are disgusted to look at this parliament and see the rotten horse-trading and deal-making going on. The Greens hold themselves up on their moral high horse and virtue-signal to the world that they are the pure ones while telling everyone what to do. In reality, they're down in the mud doing dirty deals like the rest of them.

What deal do we have to look at today? The government is going to build and own houses—not the people of Australia but the government. This is full-blown communism delivered express to your door. As the infamous Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has repeatedly told the world already, 'You will own nothing, and you will be happy.' The goal of the Greens and Labor is to come into this chamber to preach to the world that they're helping Australians—helping you. The Greens' rent caps have already led directly to faster rent increases, because landlords understandably want to get ahead of the rent caps. The Greens are already hurting renters. The housing crisis is a problem that government created entirely.

The government is now claiming to have the solution. That's a fraud, Minister. The Albanese Labor government has allowed one million people to arrive in this country in just one year. That's 460,000 in net migration and 540,000 students visas. Every one of those needs a bed and a roof over their head. That's not to mention the additional 200,000 other visas. That's 1.2 million. A population flood the size of Adelaide has hit this country in 12 months. That's the cause of the housing and rental crisis. It's completely government made. If your rent has gone up, you can't afford a house or you can't even find a place to live, like the people in regional Queensland towns living in caravans, tents, parks and cars and under bridges. Just remember this: the Albanese Labor government brought one million people into this country in one year.

With this bill, the Albanese government is claiming that it will build a few thousand houses and fix the problem. Who will build them? Supply chains for materials are still damaged due to the government's COVID reaction and mismanagement, which shattered supply chains. The energy crisis has been inflicted due to the government adopting the UN 2050 net zero policy and driving up energy costs. Australia's tradies already build houses at the fourth-fastest rate in the OECD. There's a question that has to be answered: can we more quickly build even more houses? Trying to flood this industry that is already at capacity with huge amounts of taxpayer money is only going to make the funnel spill over. That will mean millions and potentially billions of your taxes wasted. Let's not forget the government's figures. They think they can build a house in Australia for $83,000. What kind of house is that? They must be smoking some powerful stuff over in the ministry for housing. It doesn't matter how many billions this government wants to spend; we will never be able to build enough houses to catch up with the current rate of immigration. That is a clear fact. It's basic arithmetic. It's practical.

Next: what do the Greens want us to use to build these houses? They won't let us use timber. There is a bill on the Notice Paper right now that the Greens introduced to end sustainable forest logging. Timber is the only resource that's truly renewable, yet the Greens have a bill saying we can't harvest the wood used in house frames while claiming with this bill that they want to build more houses. I guess that is okay. We can just build houses with steel frames, right? Not according to the Greens. Too many ingredients in making steel are coal and iron ore, Australia's two major mining commodities. The Greens want to end mining in Australia, so we would have nothing with which to make the steel. So the Greens say they want to build more houses—virtue signalling—yet if Australia implemented their policies we would have no steel, no wood with which to build houses. And if our coal, iron ore and timber industries survived the Greens blight, prices of house timber and steel will be far higher thanks to the Greens restrictions. The hypocrisy is so damn thick we could cut it with a knife.

The Greens policies are antihuman. One Nation's policy includes many solutions to the government-created housing crisis, taken together holistically because the problem is many factored. Among these immediate solutions to the housing crisis is that we must cut immigration immediately, reduce our arrivals to zero net immigration, meaning only allow the same number of people into the country as the number that leave so departures cancel out arrivals. As Australians know, this country is already bursting at the seams. A cut to immigration would allow our housing stock, our essential services—hospitals, our schools—and other services time to catch up. If we don't stop immigration or cut immigration, life is going to get far, far worse for Australians, and it is already getting bad with the cost of living being the No. 1 problem on people's minds. To continue this unprecedented immigration intake in the face of the housing and cost-of-living crisis is an act of criminal negligence against the Australian people.

Minister, why is the government allowing one million students and permanent migrants into the country in just 12 months? How many houses does the government expect the million student and permanent migrant arrivals will need? How many houses does the government expect to build in 12 months? How many houses will the government's allocation of taxpayer funds build?

There was, in fact, a question at the end there. The government does not support the policy prescription that you've offered on migration. While you can hear echoes of the proposition that you've just put in relation to migration in some of what is best described as circular comments of the Leader of the Opposition on migration and housing, in fact, migration will be an important part and has been an important part of the housing industry in Australia since World War II. In fact, if you spend time on any building site in Australia, what you will find are migrants, permanent and temporary—mostly permanent—who in fact make up a very large part of the labour force building homes, building apartment blocks, building shopping centres all over Australia.

The government's migration settings will be made over time and will be made in the national interest. I hear your argument with your colleagues down here in the Greens' political party. The government has always made it very clear: where there are constructive suggestions from anyone on the crossbench we will work with people—senators and members—across the parliament in the national interest where there are sensible amendments proposed to reach agreement on legislation in its passage through this parliament.

There is nothing like the disappointment of a crossbench senator who doesn't feel like they've got their way in the process, but I've heard the complaints from crossbench senators over the short time I have been here. I'll just assure you, and all of the crossbench senators, that the government's approach has been consistent in terms of this legislation and will be consistent in the future. Where there are opportunities for constructive discussion about government legislation then we will engage in that.

We're getting close to the 11:45 guillotine that the government has put on this really important set of bills, which is really disappointing. As I said in my previous contributions in this place, it's really disappointing that, once again, we see the Australian taxpayer having to be the one who forks out because of Labor's botched policy development. If only the Labor Party had actually bothered to put together an appropriate product to take to the market to address the issue they were seeking to deliver on, instead of just coming in with this ridiculous $10 billion off-balance-sheet financially engineered thing that we know is very unlikely to deliver the kinds of funds which would enable the disbursement that Senator Ayres is crowing this fund will be able to deliver.

As I said, once again, it's the poor old taxpayers of Australia who are the ones who will have to suck up the cost to them. That's because, at the end of the day, as a general rule governments don't have money; it's usually out the pockets of taxpayers that we have money to fund these things. We had an amount of $2 billion sent to the states and territories earlier in the year to make sure we had them on side, and now there's another billion dollars of taxpayer funds to fix this up so they could buy the support of the Greens.

Here we are, standing here today—before we have even passed this legislation—with a 30 per cent blowout in the Housing Australia Future Fund. The legislation hasn't even gone through this place yet! We're also having a guillotine, because, clearly, those opposite don't want us to continue to ask questions about where they're getting the money from, what the modelling is and why they've failed to define terms such as 'social housing', 'affordable housing' and 'acute housing'. These are really fundamental definitions in order for us to understand what this particular legislation is going to do. In the absence of those definitions, we can only imagine the opportunity for the states and territories to use these disbursements and to use this fund as a slush fund. They could do whatever they like with the money that this government is obviously going to channel through to them.

This is just another classic example of a rushed, headline policy that has not had the detail dealt with and, once again, Australian taxpayers and the people who are impacted by this will be the ones who suffer. We actually don't know whether there will be one house delivered by this. Clearly, the Greens have managed to convince the government to put in a minimum disbursement of $500 million. We have no modelling to understand whether that $500 million is even a realistic amount of money to be delivered as a net gain from this fund over a period of time. And we're not talking about this fund generating $500 million, because of course the interest has to come out of it. We don't know what the modelling is around the interest and we don't know what the government is expecting. But what we do know is that if we base it on what happened last year—if this fund had been in place last year—not only would it not have made any money it would actually have lost money. So the question the government needs to answer for the Australian public is: how long is this $10 billion actually going to last under the current circumstances? We have great volatility in our markets and there are no security provisions in there in order to save for a rainy day. That's because they have agreed with the Greens that the disbursement is a minimum of $500 million. If the fund makes more than that—please, it would be great if it did—they're going to disburse all those funds. So they will disburse the extra funds in the years they make more than the net $500 million—if they do—but there's no provision for what they're going to do in putting money away for the years when they don't make the money.

The opposition will not be supporting the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill because we believe that it's absolutely bad policy and the IMF has said that it's bad policy. Once again, this government is just shoving something through here with no regard or consultation simply because they want tick off an election commitment and to hell with the consequences!

Minister, you voted against our second reading amendment, which basically says 'get back to net zero immigration', but you also failed to answer my questions. Why is the government allowing one million students and permanent migrants into the country in just 12 months? How many houses does the government expect a million students and permanent migrant arrivals will need? How many houses does the government expects to build in 12 months?

The time for consideration of these bills has expired. I will now put the questions required to conclude consideration of the bills. I will first go to amendments and requests circulated by the government.

Could I seek that sheet QT101 be separated out from the grouping of the other government amendments?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Certainly.

The question before the committee is that the requests for amendments on sheet UC149 to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the amendment on sheet UC142 to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the amendment on sheet ZC221 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 be agreed to.

Gove rnment's circulated requests for amendments in respect of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

SHEET UC149

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 16), after the definition of derivative, insert:

designated annual amount has the meaning given by section 33B.

(2) Clause 12, page 13 (line 14), omit "section 33", substitute "sections 33 and 33A".

(3) Clause 26, page 24 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph (4)(b), substitute:

(b) the Finance Minister is satisfied that the transfer will not:

(i) if the financial year is the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023—contravene section 36 (annual limit); or

(ii) if the financial year is a financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2024—cause the total amount debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account under this section and sections 29 and 33 during the financial year to exceed the designated annual amount for the financial year;

(4) Clause 29, page 26 (line 23), omit "The", substitute "If the financial year is the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023, the"

(5) Clause 29, page 26 (after line 25), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) If the financial year is a financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2024, the Finance Minister must not give a direction under subsection (2) if doing so would cause the total amount debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account under this section and sections 26 and 33 during the financial year to exceed the designated annual amount for the financial year.

(6) Clause 32, page 28 (after line 10), after the paragraph beginning "Amounts will be", insert:

(7) Heading to clause 33, page 28 (line 11), omit "Transfers", substitute "Requested transfers".

(8) Clause 33, page 29 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (4)(b), substitute:

(b) the Finance Minister is satisfied that the transfer will not:

(i) if the financial year is the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023—contravene section 36 (annual limit); or

(ii) if the financial year is a financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2024—cause the total amount debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account under this section and sections 26 and 29 during the financial year to exceed the designated annual amount for the financial year;

(9) Page 30 (after line 9), after clause 33, insert:

33A Guaranteed transfers from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account to the Housing Australia Special Account

(1) This section applies if, at the start of 1 June in a financial year beginning after 30 June 2024, the total amount (the total debited amount) that has been, or will be, debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account under sections 26, 29 and 33 during the financial year is less than the designated annual amount for the financial year.

(2) The Finance Minister must, in writing, direct that a specified amount (which must equal the designated annual amount for the financial year minus the total debited amount) is to be:

(a) debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account; and

(b) credited to the Housing Australia Special Account;

on a specified day before the end of the financial year.

(3) A direction under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

(4) If the Finance Minister personally gives a direction under subsection (2), the Finance Minister must give a copy of the direction to the Housing Minister and the Treasurer.

(5) If a delegate of the Finance Minister gives a direction under subsection (2), the delegate must give a copy of the direction to the Treasury Department.

33B Meaning of designated annual amount

The designated annual amount for a financial year is:

(a) if a determination in force under section 33C specifies the amount applicable to the financial year—that amount; or

(b) otherwise—$500 million.

Note: If no determination has been made under section 33C, the designated annual amount is indexed in accordance with section 33E. If a determination has been made under section 33C, the determination may provide for the designated annual amount to be indexed in accordance with the determination.

33C Determination of designated annual amount

(1) The responsible Ministers may, by legislative instrument, determine that, for the purposes of paragraph 33B(a), a specified amount is the designated annual amount for:

(a) a specified financial year; or

(b) a specified financial year and each subsequent financial year.

Note: For variation and revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) A determination under subsection (1) must not have the effect of reducing the designated annual amount for a financial year.

(3) A determination under subsection (1) may make provision for and in relation to the indexation of the designated annual amount for a financial year.

(4) A determination under subsection (1) must be made before the start of the first financial year to which the amount specified in the determination is applicable.

(5) In making a determination under subsection (1), the responsible Ministers must have regard to:

(a) the advice given by the Future Fund Board under section 33D in relation to the impact of the making of the determination on the ability of the Future Fund Board to comply with this Act and the Housing Australia Future Fund Investment Mandate; and

(b) such other matters (if any) as the responsible Ministers consider relevant.

(6) If the responsible Ministers make a determination under subsection (1) (the initial determination), the responsible Ministers must ensure that a determination under subsection (1) is in force at all times after the initial determination is made.

(7) If the responsible Ministers vary a determination under subsection (1) to specify a different amount, the variation must be made before the start of the first financial year to which the varied amount is applicable.

33D Determination of designated annual amount — advice given by the Future Fund Board

(1) Before making a determination under subsection 33C(1), the responsible Ministers must give the Future Fund Board a written notice that:

(a) sets out a draft of the determination; and

(b) requires the Future Fund Board to:

(i) give advice to those Ministers about the impact of the making of the determination on the ability of the Future Fund Board to comply with this Act and the Housing Australia Future Fund Investment Mandate; and

(ii) do so within the period specified in the notice; and

(c) requires the Future Fund Board, in giving that advice, to have regard to:

(i) the Housing Australia Future Fund Investment Mandate; and

(ii) such other matters (if any) as are specified in the notice.

(2) The Future Fund Board must comply with a requirement in a notice under subsection (1).

(3) A period specified under subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) must not be shorter than 60 days after the notice is given.

(4) A matter specified under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) must not be inconsistent with:

(a) this Act; or

(b) the Housing Australia Future Fund Investment Mandate.

(5) Paragraph (1)(c) does not, by implication, limit the matters to which the Future Fund Board may have regard.

(6) The advice given by the Future Fund Board in accordance with subparagraph (1)(b)(i) must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the relevant determination.

Note: As the determination is a legislative instrument, it is also tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003.

33E Indexation of designated annual amount

(1) At the start of each financial year (an indexation year) after the financial year ending on 30 June 2029, the designated annual amount is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula:

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a financial year if a determination under subsection 33C(1) has been made in relation to that financial year or a previous financial year.

(3) The indexation factor for an indexation year is the number worked out using the following formula:

where:

base quarter means the last March quarter before the reference quarter.

index number, for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter.

refere nce quarter means the March quarter in the last year before the indexation year.

(4) An indexation factor is to be calculated to 3 decimal places (rounding up if the 4th decimal place is 5 or more).

(5) Amounts worked out under subsection (1) are to be rounded to the nearest whole dollar (rounding 50 cents upwards).

(6) An indexation factor that is less than 1 is to be increased to 1.

(7) Calculations under subsection (3):

(a) are to be made using only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published index reference period; and

(b) are to be made disregarding index numbers that are published in substitution for previously published index numbers (except where the substituted numbers are published to take account of changes in the index reference period).

(10) Clause 34, page 30 (before line 11), insert:

Requested transfers

(11) Clause 34, page 30 (line 11), before "If", insert "(1)".

(12) Clause 34, page 30 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:

Guaranteed transfers

(2) If an amount (the credited amount) has been credited under paragraph 33A(2)(b) to the Housing Australia Special Account, the Housing Minister must:

(a) ensure that the Housing Australia Special Account is debited for the purposes of making a payment of an amount equal to the credited amount to Housing Australia for the purpose specified in paragraph 47C(1)(b) of the Housing Australia Act 2018; and

(b) do so as soon as practicable after the credited amount has been credited.

Note: Under subsection 47C(2A) of the Housing Australia Act 2018, such a payment enables Housing Australia to make grants and loans in relation to acute housing needs, social housing or affordable housing.

(13) Heading to Part 5, page 31 (line 1), omit "Annual Limit", substitute "Limit".

(14) Clause 35, page 31 (line 6), omit "an annual", substitute "a".

(15) Clause 35, page 31 (line 7), after "Account", insert "in the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023".

(16) Clause 36, page 31 (lines 8 to 14), omit the clause, substitute:

36 Limit on amounts debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account

The total amount debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account under sections 26, 29 and 33 during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 must not exceed $500 million.

(17) Clause 38, page 32 (line 17), omit "and 33", substitute ", 33 and 33A".

(18) Clause 41, page 34 (line 11), omit "section 33", substitute "sections 33 and 33A".

(19) Clause 61, page 45 (line 8), omit "or 33", substitute ", 33 or 33A".

(20) Clause 65, page 47 (line 25), omit "section 33", substitute "sections 33 and 33A".

————

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendment (9)

The effect of this amendment is to provide for a set amount to be credited each financial year into the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Special Account (established by section 47A of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018) from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account (established by section 10 of the Bill). It also provides that a higher set amount may be determined and that if no higher set amount is determined, the set amount will be indexed for each financial year that begins after 30 June 2029.

This will increase the amount that will be paid each financial year from the Special Accounts mentioned above, with those payments being made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Amendment (12)

The effect of this amendment is to provide for the set amount that is credited each financial year to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Special Account (established by section 47A of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018) to be debited from that Special Account.

This will increase the amount that will be paid each financial year from the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Special Account, with those payments being made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Consequential amendments

All other amendments on sheet UC149 are consequential on the amendments mentioned above.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (9) and (12)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Remaining amendments

The remaining amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

Government's circulated amendments in respe ct of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

SHEET UC142

(1) Clause 65, page 48 (line 24), omit "31 December 2028", substitute "31 December 2026".

Government's circulated amendments in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023—

SHEET ZC221

(1) Schedule 2, page 19 (after line 3), after item 12, insert:

12A At the end of section 48

Add:

(3) The Investment Mandate may include a direction that the Board must, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), disregard liabilities or loans of a specified type.

The next question is that the amendment to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 on sheet QT101 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendment—

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

Question agreed to.

The next question before the chair is that Senator David Pocock's amendments on sheet 2012 to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 20), after paragraph (2)(h), insert:

(ha) accessibility for people with disability;

Senator Pocock, it's been indicated to me that you may wish to split the next question, in relation to sheet 2110, to be put as a separate question.

Yes, please, if that's alright.

The question is that Senator David Pocock's requests for amendments on sheet 1951 and the amendments on sheets 1954, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated requests for amendments in respect of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

SHEET 1951

(1) Clause 8, page 10 (line 7), omit "$10 billion", substitute "$20 billion".

(2) Clause 11, page 12 (line 4), omit "$10 billion", substitute "$20 billion".

————

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the amount that is to be initially credited to the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account from $10 billion to $20 billion.

As the amendment would increase the amount to be credited to a special account, the effect of the amendment would be to increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments in respect of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

SHEET 1954

(1) Clause 33, page 28 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Housing Minister must not make a request under subsection (1) unless:

(a) the Housing Minister has requested the Board of Housing Australia to provide advice on whether the Board endorses the making of the request (including in respect of the amount specified in the request); and

(b) the Board has advised the Housing Minister that the Board endorses the making of the request.

(1B) In considering a request for advice under subsection (1A), the Board of Housing Australia must have regard to Housing Australia's requirements and commitments for the current financial year and future financial years in relation to the performance of its functions under the Housing Australia Act 2018 (in accordance with the Investment Mandate under that Act).

SHEET 1955

(1) Clause 64, page 47 (line 14), omit "power.", substitute "power; or".

(2) Clause 64, page 47 (after line 14), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(c) a member of the Board of Housing Australia; or

(d) the Chief Executive Officer of Housing Australia; or

(e) a person who:

(i) is a senior member of the staff of Housing Australia; and

(ii) has the expertise appropriate to the function or power.

SHEET 1956

(1) Clause 65, page 48 (line 24), omit "31 December 2028", substitute "1 July 2026".

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments in respect of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

SHEET 1958

(1) Clause 21, page 12 (lines 7 and 8), omit "APS employees in the Department whose services are made available by the Secretary", substitute "employees of Housing Australia whose services are made available by Housing Australia".

(2) Clause 31, page 18 (lines 4 and 5), omit "APS employees in the Department whose services are made available to the Council, by the Secretary", substitute "employees of Housing Australia whose services are made available to the Council, by Housing Australia".

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

SHEET 1959

(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 15 (after line 19), after the definition of guarantee function, insert:

research support function: see subsection 8(1D).

(2) Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (after line 24), after paragraph 8(1)(c), insert:

(ca) the research support function; and

(3) Schedule 2, item 5, page 17 (after line 11), after subsection 8(1C), insert:

Research support function

(1D) Housing Australia's research support function is to undertake research:

(a) to assist it in performing the functions mentioned in paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c); and

(b) in response to requests from the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.

SHEET 1960

(1) Schedule 2, item 16, page 19 (after line 27), after section 57B, insert:

57C Review of Housing Australia's operations

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operations of Housing Australia to be commenced within 3 months after the earlier of:

(a) the day a plan of the Australian Government known as the National Housing and Homeless Plan is first published in a final form; and

(b) the day occurring 2 years after the day this section commences.

(2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.

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

SHEET 1961

(1) Schedule 3, page 21 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:

2 At the end of secti on 51

Add:

Review of guarantee

(4) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the guarantee under this section to be commenced on or after 1 January 2027, and no later than 1 July 2027.

(5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months after the commencement of the review.

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

Question negatived.

The question now is that Senator David Pocock's amendments on sheet 2110, in respect of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2A, page 2 (after line 17), at the end of paragraph (a), add:

(v) people in regional, rural and remote Australia; and

(2) Clause 4, page 7 (after line 28), after the definition of realise, insert:

regional, rural and remote Australia means an area that is classified as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia under the Remoteness Structure described in:

(a) the document titled "Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016", published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time; or

(b) the most recent replacement of the document referred to in paragraph (a) that is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time.

Note: The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016 could in 2023 be viewed on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (https://www.abs.gov.au).

(3) Clause 65, page 47 (line 31), after subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), insert:

and (iv) housing needs in regional, rural and remote Australia;

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the requests and amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's requests for amendments on sheet 1864 revised and the amendments on sheets 1883, 1921 and 2108 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated re quests for amendments in respect of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

SHEET 1864 REVISED

(1) Clause 19, page 19 (after line 15), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) Without limiting subsection (2), if the grant relates to the construction of new dwellings for social housing, the terms and conditions must provide requirements:

(a) for each of the dwellings to meet the Silver Level requirements, and at least 10% of the dwellings to meet the Platinum Level requirements, of the Livable Housing Australia Design Guidelines, as existing from time to time; and

(b) for each of the dwellings to achieve at least an 8-star energy efficiency rating under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme.

(2) Clause 26, page 24 (line 7), omit "and".

(3) Clause 26, page 24 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph (4)(b).

(4) Clause 29, page 26 (lines 23 to 25), omit subclause (4).

(5) Clause 33, page 29 (line 6), omit "and".

(6) Clause 33, page 29 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (4)(b).

(7) Part 5, clauses 35 and 36, page 31 (lines 1 to 14), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 5 — Requirements relating to total amounts of funding and certain priorities

35 Simplified outline of this Part

36 Requirements relating to total amounts of funding and certain priorities

(1) The Housing Minister must ensure that, in each financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2023, a total of at least $5 billion of funding is provided through:

(a) payments in relation to grants made under section 18; or

(b) transfers under section 33.

(2) The Housing Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that, during the period beginning on 1 July 2023 and ending on 30 June 2028, at least 150,000 dwellings are constructed for social housing and affordable housing through the provision of funding as mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) The Housing Minister must ensure that at least $500 million of the total funding for each financial year mentioned in subsection (1) is provided for housing, including repairs and maintenance of existing housing, for Indigenous persons across urban, regional and remote areas, in addition to any funding publicly announced before the day the Bill for this Act was introduced into the Senate.

(4) The Housing Minister must ensure that the funding mentioned in subsection (1) includes funding for social housing maintenance and retrofitting, to make progress toward ensuring all social housing dwellings in Australia:

(a) meet the Silver Level requirements of the Livable Housing Australia Design Guidelines, as existing from time to time; and

(b) achieve at least an 8-star energy efficiency rating under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme.

(5) The responsible Ministers must exercise their powers under subsection 11(2) (credits of amounts) in such a way as to ensure the requirements in this section can be satisfied.

(6) The amounts mentioned in subsections (1) and (3) are to be indexed, for each financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2024, in accordance with the rules.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), the rules must provide for indexation in line with Consumer Price Index increases.

————

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (7)

Amendment (7) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to remove the annual limit on amounts debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account and replaces this limit with certain minimum funding requirements. The amendment would increase the level of funding provided under the bill through increased amounts of debits from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account.

While funds may initially be transferred to another special account, ultimately the effect of the amendment would be to increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

Amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) are consequential to amendment (7).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (7)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

These amendments are consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments in respect of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

SHEET 1883

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 17), after the paragraph beginning "This Act", insert:

This Act also establishes the First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority.

(2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 7), after the definition of Deputy Secretary, insert:

designated First Nations members has the meaning given by paragraph 22(3)(b).

First Nations person means a person who is:

(a) a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; and

(b) who identifies as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin; and

(c) who is accepted as such by the community with which the person associates.

(3) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 20), after the paragraph beginning "The Council's", insert:

The First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority is established.

(4) Clause 8, page 5 (line 11), omit paragraph (d), substitute:

(d) at least 9 and no more than 12 other appointed members.

(5) Clause 9, page 6 (after line 19), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In performing the functions mentioned in subsection (1), the Council must collaborate with the First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority.

(6) Page 7 (after line 25), after clause 9, insert:

9A First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority

(1) The First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority is established by this section.

(2) The Authority consists of the following members:

(a) the designated First Nations members;

(b) one First Nations representative from each of the following organisations, appointed by the Minister by written instrument:

(i) the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association;

(ii) the National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services;

(iii) the First Peoples Disability Network;

(iv) the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation;

(v) Black Rainbow;

(c) any other First Nationsperson appointed by the Minister by written instrument.

(3) The Authority has the following functions:

(a) to develop mechanisms to build and sustain the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community-Controlled Housing sector;

(b) to oversee the development, adoption and enactment of cultural principles into all federal government housing and homelessness frameworks and plans;

(c) to review the adoption and enactment of the cultural principles mentioned in paragraph (b) and monitor and evaluate adherence to these principles;

(d) to develop a specific First Nations housing schedule of works, to track, monitor and evaluate the impacts and outcomes of investments in First Nations housing;

(e) to undertake consultation in all States and Territories on the housing challenges faced by First Nations people;

(f) to collaborate with the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council on decision making in relation to housing challenges faced by First Nations people;

(g) to consult with Commonwealth bodies and any other stakeholders in the housing system or homelessness sector in relation to the performance of any of the above functions;

(h) to perform any other functions conferred on it by this Act or any other Act;

(i) any other functions prescribed by the rules.

(4) In performing the functions mentioned in subsection (3), the Authority must consult with First Nations experts and leaders in the housing, homelessness, and family and domestic violence sectors.

(5) The Authority has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.

(6) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe:

(a) matters related to the composition, membership and functions of the First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority; and

(b) the remuneration and allowances (if any) of the members of the First Nations Housing Supply and Affordability Authority; and

(c) any other matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this section.

(7) Before making rules under subsection (6), the Minister must consult with First Nations experts and leaders in the housing, homelessness, and family and domestic violence sectors.

(7) Clause 22, page 13 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) In appointing members, the Minister must ensure that:

(a) the appointed members collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills or experience in the fields mentioned in subsection (2); and

(b) at least 2 of the appointed members are First Nations persons (the designated First Nations members).

(3A) Despite subsections (2) and (3), the appointed members must include:

(a) 2 persons with lived experience of housing stress due to family and domestic violence; and

(b) 2 persons with lived experience of homelessness.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments in re spect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

SHEET 1921

(1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 18 (after line 14), after subsection 10(5), insert:

(5A) Without limiting subsection (5), in the case of a loan or grant that relates to the construction of new dwellings for social housing, the terms and conditions must provide requirements:

(a) for each of the dwellings to meet the Silver Level requirements, and at least 10% of the dwellings to meet the Platinum Level requirements, of the Livable Housing Australia Design Guidelines, as existing from time to time; and

(b) for each of the dwellings to achieve at least an 8-star energy efficiency rating under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments in respect of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

SHEET 2108

(1) Page 32 (before line 1), before Part 6, insert:

Part 5A — Funding priorities for Indigenous persons

37A Simplified outline of this Part

37B Funding priorities for housing for Indigenous persons

(1) The Housing Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that at least 10% of dwellings constructed through the provision of funding in a financial year through payments in relation to grants made under section 18 or transfers under section 33 are constructed for housing for Indigenous persons, in addition to any such dwellings constructed through the provision of funding publicly announced before the day the Bill for this Act was introduced into the Senate.

(2) The Housing Minister must ensure that, in relation to funding provided through payments in relation to grants made under section 18 or transfers under section 33 for housing for Indigenous persons, priority is given to ownership and management of dwellings by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community-Controlled Housing Organisations, with relevant decisions being made:

(a) on the advice of:

(i) the Housing Policy Partnership established by the council of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers that is known, on the day on which this section commences, as the Joint Council on Closing the Gap; and

(ii) the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council; and

(b) in consultation with national, State or Territory peak bodies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community-Controlled Housing Organisations.

Question negatived.

I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition on sheets 1882 and 2105. The question is that schedule 4 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 stand as printed.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

SHEET 1882

(1) Title, page 1 (lines 3 to 5), omit "and to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Housing Australia Future Fund Act2023,".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item.

(3) Schedule 4, page 22 (line 1) to page 30 (line 13), to be opposed.

The question is that schedule 4 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 stand as printed.

We come to the remaining question before the committee, which is in relation to sheets 1882 and 2105, standing in the name of the opposition.

My understanding is that there is a different voting intention on a pair request in relation to sheets 1882 and 2105. I would seek, if that's the case, for them to be put separately. I believe Senator Thorpe was voting differently.

I'm advised by the table staff that because the first question in relation to schedule 4 standing as printed was resolved in the affirmative, that I'm only to move 2105 now. So there will only be one question put. I intend to put it. The question now before the committee is that the remaining amendments on sheet 2105 to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 22, page 13 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) In appointing members, the Minister must ensure that:

(a) the appointed members collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills or experience in the fields mentioned in subsection (2); and

(b) at least one of the appointed members has a substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, one or more regional areas of Australia through business, industry or community involvement.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed, subject to request on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023.

I ask that the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 be voted on separately to the other two bills, please.

In accordance with the request by Senator Ruston, I will put the questions separately. The question now is that the remaining stages of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 be now passed.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed subject to requests to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023.

I just seek clarification in relation to your calling of that division, President. I heard you say that all remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and that the bills now be passed, subject to requests. I make it very clear that we had already voted in favour of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, and that last vote was only actually specifically on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. I want to make sure that it is clear in the Hansard that the opposition voted no on that bill alone.

I was aware that you split the bills. I seek the advice of the Clerk. Thank you, Senator Ruston. I clarify that that division and the agreement to the bills was in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill.

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 read a third time.

Because the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 was agreed to subject to requests it will not be read a third time. A message will be sent to the House requesting that the House make the amendments. Senators, that concludes the consideration of the bills.

Statements by senators is a prized opportunity for us to talk about things that matter to us and that have a significant impact on the nation. I think it would be remiss if I did not begin today by congratulating the Transport Workers Union on their longstanding advocacy for workers and their rights and by putting on the record my support for the outstanding judgement that has come down today that makes it clear that companies cannot operate outside the Fair Work Act. We see today a very significant outcome against Qantas and for the workers who served our nation so well in their work in that industry. I congratulate the TWU because they took on a big task. It has been a long battle. The outcome is just.

I looked for other things that might be worth talking about. I know that our gaze has been averted for some time from the challenges that face Australians with regard to the actions of the biggest auditing companies in the world and their bases here in Australia—PwC, EY, Deloitte and KPMG. I draw the attention of people in the chamber to an article that came out today by Mr Edmund Tadros that talks about the big four's secret client mapping, which is the way they go in and find out who has the power and where they can organise further work for themselves. They take that back and use it as a tool to further their business and advance their profits. It's a great article.

There's so much to talk about—and the HAFF has just gone through—but today I choose to use the time allocated to me to persuade, if I can, as many Australians as possible to join me in voting yes on 14 October because this is a material and vital historic moment for our nation. I stand before the chamber, before the Australian public, aware of the power that we each have as senators in this place and the responsibility incumbent on us, the authority and the power we exercise on behalf of the Australian people—all the Australian people. Each day I'm in committee meetings and conversations that set forth vision, ideals and the course that this nation will take into the future. This place is not a normal place by any stretch of the imagination. We actually have immense power over the lives of millions of Australians—our fellow citizens. What we say and what we do has real consequences, and we need to act with hope, with integrity, with vision and with endeavour, and we need to build our nation up, not take it down.

I see Senator Malarndirri McCarthy here, and in the divisions we've just gone through we were engaged in conversation. I spoke to her about my wondering, when is the moment? When did the moment occur in our great history where we became so afraid, to the extent that those who are manufacturing a false argument against the Voice and recognition of our First Nations people have been able to get purchase on our hearts and minds and make us afraid of an advisory body—a group of people getting together to give advice to the government to make sure the money we invest in the benefit of Aboriginal First Nations Australians is spent well, to give them a say? Are we really so afraid that senators who are advancing the 'no' case can play with that fear, can advance false arguments so that we can't even think about giving First Nations people an advisory body to speak to the parliament and a recognition in our Constitution that says, 'Yep, actually, we're better than we were in 1901 and we're willing to say you were here'?

That's what the Voice will achieve; that's what the referendum will achieve—those two things: recognition and a chance to listen. But there are those among us who do not want to hear. They are drowning out the good voices, the hope and the sense of right that we should all take up in this battle. To do our job as senators and members, we require sound and direct advice. We need advice that listens to and understands the realities of the moments for which we legislate. We have to understand the failures of the past and the potential for improvement. Without this advice it's as if one is navigating without a map or any knowledge of the stars. That's why I, as a senator and a practitioner of government, call for the establishment and the enshrinement in the Constitution of Australia of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth—an advisory body.

We should not be afraid to listen. And I passionately believe that everyone in parliament can benefit from having a better-informed understanding of the realities of the decisions we make. The alteration that we're being encouraged to be frightened of comes in the form of three short stanzas. It rightfully returns some of the power to better the lives of Australia's Indigenous people back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens, allowing these peoples to reclaim their ability to have a say when we gather in this place and announce the progress that's been made towards closing the gap—or the lack of progress, sadly—and that is the gap of eight years in life expectancy, the gap in the sense that Indigenous men are more likely to go to prison than to university, and the gap of a community that is twice as likely to be shattered by suicide.

In this moment, I want to be extremely clear: there is a very real cost to voting 'no' at this referendum. Apart from the silencing of voices and creating a barrier to this parliament hearing the truth, there is a cost that is seen in the billions of taxpayer dollars being spent in an uninformed and unproductive way. So often in this place, the default measure for dealing with any issue has been to throw money at the problem. It's not that money doesn't matter. It does. But to write a cheque and forget about the rest is just bad policymaking. It's bad economics. It's a bad idea and a terrible practice. I instead believe that the correct question is not, 'How much money is being spent?' but: 'How is the money being spent? How effectively is it being spent? How could we target the finite bucket of money in the budget to ensure best value and the most targeted programs to support some of the most vulnerable and traumatised citizens in Australia?' That's worth hearing about. Clearly, more of the same is not working for either Indigenous Australians or Australian taxpayers. The cost of having an advisory body through the Voice is minuscule compared to the savings and efficiencies that are to be gained.

I encourage all my colleagues here to get out of the red room and spend some more time on the red dirt. See the situation in which some of our most important citizens live. If they do, they will not meet a unified voice; they will meet different perspectives. But let's be clear: the facts of the Voice to Parliament are a response to the majority. Not every single person of First Nations origin—not every single man and woman—but a majority of First Nations people gave their assent to the Voice. They gave their assent to us advancing a referendum. I urge Australian citizens to get out on the ground with me and campaign to be a better, braver nation than those who would have us vote 'no'. Vote 'yes' on 14 October. Vote for a better future for our country, for all of us but particularly for First Nations people. We have no cause to be frightened of an advisory body, and it's time we recognised that First Nations people were here. That's why we call them First Nations.

I rise today to talk directly to the many hundreds of thousands of self-employed tradies right across Australia, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. When I say 'many hundreds of thousands', I mean just that. There are 264,000 self-employed tradies in the building industry alone. That doesn't take into account the mining industry, agriculture and all those other parts of the economy where self-employed tradies are so important.

I rise because I am deeply concerned about what the loose—and, I suspect, deliberately loose—drafting in the Labor Party's industrial relations bill that's before this chamber at the moment. It's been sent off to the Senate inquiry. I congratulate crossbenchers who supported us in ensuring that the inquiry was of a reasonable length. Too often in this place we've seen the crossbench siding with the Labor government to ensure that scrutiny is minimised, to ensure rushed and hurried inquiries. But even the initial examination of this IR legislation by the crossbenchers, the Liberal Party and the National Party shows that it needs deep scrutiny, because there are so many concerns raised in this bill. I'm talking directly to the tradies out there, because that is one of the areas where we see deliberate or unintended mass overreach from the government.

They stated their intention last year to tackle the issue of uncertain work via platforms—the so-called 'gig economy'—in this bill, but the language in the bill is so broad, using terms like 'employee-like' or a 'regulated worker'. I won't go into the Orwellian nature of those terms, but the fact is they are extraordinarily general to the point where, depending on interpretation, it is entirely possible that people who currently consider themselves to be their own business, people who consider themselves to be self-employed, will be clawed in under the term 'employee-like' or will be directly bought in as a regulated worker. We see this with the trucking industry. The IR legislation contains particular provisions aimed at independent truckies and making sure they are caught directly under this legislation, but it's not going to be just independent truckies who are caught.

To the self-employed Australians out there: are you an electrician, a welder, a chippie or a bricklayer? Are you a roofer, a glazier or a plumber? Are you a driver of specialised heavy equipment? Are you a tiler? There are so many other professions out there that operate under independent contract models where the individual is their own business or a small team are their own business. They are self-employed and they do that for a reason. They don't want to get dragged into enterprise agreements. People choose to be independent for a reason. They don't want to be dragged into a union. They choose to be independent for a reason. They don't want to be treated as an employee-like worker. They choose to be independent. They choose to be self-employed. The fact is that this legislation has been worded in such a way as to put every one of those professions, those jobs, on notice—every one of those independent tradies out there who want to choose who they work for, who want to choose the hours they work, who want to choose where they work, who want to choose how much they get paid. They are all at risk under this legislation.

What does 'employee-like' actually mean? If you're an independent contractor. If you're an electrician or a chippie or a brickie or a welder or an independent truckie or a roofer or a glazier or a plumber and you happen to do the vast majority of your work with one contracting business, do you start to look like an employee? If you read how the Fair Work Commission interprets 'employee-like', you see that, yes, maybe you do. Maybe you can be dragged into an enterprise amendment against your will when you consider yourself to be an independent business. You consider yourself to be a subbie. You choose who you work with. You choose where you work. You choose how much you get paid. You negotiate directly with those businesses in the supply chain above you as to what you do, when you do it and how you do it.

I know many tradies, and they value that independence. The government will say, 'Oh, no; this is just targeting digital platforms. This is just targeting the gig economy,' but the fact is they've drafted the legislation in such a way that that is not clear. We've seen peak industry groups point out that it is not clear whether those independent tradies will get dragged into enterprise agreements, will get dragged into involvement with the union movement, will get dragged into being considered something that they do not consider themselves.

They consider themselves to be their own entities. They consider themselves to be their own businesses, subbies, contractors, electricians, welders, chippies, bricklayers, independent truckies, roofers, glaziers, plumbers, heavy equipment drivers, tilers—it goes on and on. So many vital parts of our economy are a part of this independent contracting sector. It deserves to be celebrated and to be highlighted in this place, and it certainly doesn't deserve, whether by deliberate action or by oversight, to be dragged into heavy-handed, centralised industrial relations changes, which are in the main aimed at reinstituting the unions at the heart of our IR system, when the private-sector workers of Australia have made it very clear they have no interest in being part of a union.

Union membership is down to something like eight per cent and falling in the private sector. Those independent tradies have demonstrated that they want that independence. They wanted to choose who they work for, when they work and how much they get paid. In the course of this inquiry, we will be examining this issue and so many other issues in great detail, because this legislation is massive overreach. The small businesses of Australia in particular will need to look at this legislation extraordinarily carefully. We will do everything we can on this side of the chamber to make sure the scrutiny is full and fair, and that the reality on the ground of the risks of this legislation to the independent tradies sector is exposed.

I want to talk about FISH Myalup Karla Waangkiny, a proposal for First Nations people in south-west WA to deliver justice and healing. The proposal is for a site in Myalup, which was a meeting place where the Bindjareb and Widandi people would come together. What has been proposed for the site is quite extraordinary. It meets the strong, unmet demand for places for healing and wraparound support for First Nations people who have been in contact or may come in contact with the justice system. This is a visionary First Nations prototype for a national program to really do justice and create intentional spaces by co-design that meets community needs. It's an opportunity to listen to First Nations people right now. The proposal includes direct programs for mentoring and healing for First Nations people at risk of entering or in the justice system, in accommodation in grounded, culturally safe places with earthen roof and walls—literally nestling in the earth. There is also a plan for the site to use the power of social enterprise which would deliver education and employment access, including in agri-innovation, aquaponics, horticulture, and traditional food and medicine, as well as research, manufacturing sustainable housing panels, and hospitality, retail and tourism.

FISH have worked with many industry stakeholders already, including the CSIRO, in developing these programs. This is the kind of thinking we need now. More prisons are more police haven't done anything except ensure more people and, tragically, far too many First Nations people are incarcerated. FISH already have funding to deliver this program from state government, and are now asking the federal government to step up and provide support. The ask isn't big—it's $20 million over three years. That's $9 million in the next financial year. Given the enormous waste of money and life that is already in the justice system from business as usual, this small investment in justice reinvestment and doing things differently is a compelling project. It is First-Nations-inspired and First-Nations-designed. It's more proof, if we need it, that when we listen to First Nations voices we hear solutions. Now we need to build it.

In my home state of New South Wales, communities across Western Sydney in particular are calling for a resounding 'yes' vote to the Voice to Parliament. Over the last few weeks, I've had the privilege to be part of a series of events with a diverse array of community representatives, including First Nations leaders and elders, who have shared their firsthand experiences and shed a light on what a Voice to Parliament would mean for them and their communities. Just this weekend, I joined the AUSPAK Women Association in Auburn for a discussion on voice. Children from the Pakistani diaspora heard the history of the First Nations flag and struggle. They produced beautiful artworks responding to what they heard and learned.

Aunty Ann Flood joined our discussion and was generous enough to share stories from her own family history to explain why she's supporting the Voice, and I'd like to thank her for attending. Aunty Ann, a Wiradjuri Ngiyampaa woman who has lived on Dharug country for around 50 years, showed the gathering a photocopy of her father's certificate of exemption, a certificate the New South Wales government issued to First Nations peoples on their own land to allow them to work and travel on their own land. That's part of Aunty Ann's lived history. She's been an educator in this country for over 40 years, but she was three years old when her father needed that certificate of exemption to have even the most basic rights in this country.

The dehumanising failures of this government towards First Nations peoples are part of our living history, and a truth our country cannot and must not escape from. It's a truth that resonates with the Pakistani diaspora too. Many attendees at this event related their own fight and their family's fight against colonialism and for recognition and self-determination in Kashmir. They recognised that they shared experiences with what Aunty Ann shared. The struggle for rights of freedom and self-determination unite people in Western Sydney and First Nations people who live amongst us, and they unite people across the planet. I'd like to thank the AUSPAK Women Association for organising the event last weekend, and for their ongoing support for justice and their support for voting 'yes' in this upcoming referendum.

First Nations elders in this country should not be forced to relive the trauma of the violence that's been issued against them over centuries and the violence that continues to this date. First Nations peoples, in the face of the history, still have the courage to step up and share their experience with us. It's an extraordinary moment of courage when you hear First Nations elders tell their story, their family's story and their community's story about the violence issued against them by our country and our government. Just a few short weeks ago, I was proud to be with four First Nations elders who were invited by the Sikh community from Blacktown and Parramatta to explain why they would be supporting the Voice to Parliament. Auntie Marlene Corbitt, a proud Boorooberongal woman; Auntie Jenny Ebsworth, a proud Ngempa Muruwari woman from Brewarrina; Auntie Daisy Barker, a proud Yorta Yorta woman from down there on the New South Wales and Victoria border; and Aunty Elaine Gordon, a proud Barkindji woman from Dareton came together to speak with the Sikh community about their experiences. They are four First Nations women with experiences of a lifetime who spoke to that meeting in Western Sydney about the importance of voting yes in the referendum. Truths were exchanged. Hearts were opened up.

The Sikh community joined together to support the aunties in their call for a strong 'yes' vote. As many of the Sikh community leaders made clear, the Sikh community has a proud history of backing social justice and backing the struggle for rights. That's partly from their own history and their own struggle for self-determination and for acknowledgement. Watching that exchange between these proud First Nations elders and this open, justice filled Sikh community in Western Sydney, I've got to say, was inspiring. I'd like to thank them all for coming together for that event. I'd also like to thank Sukhjinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh and the many other members and leaders of the Sikh community for their support for a 'yes' vote in this referendum.

Migrant and diaspora communities understand on a deeply personal level, and sometimes on a painful level, how interlinked their struggles for freedom and self-determination are. I'm honoured that people are sharing their stories and struggles with me, with other MPs and with other community members in this ongoing referendum. It's an honour to be there and watch the exchange, especially between diaspora communities and First Nations representatives, and to see them bind together in their support for a 'yes' vote in this referendum. I've heard their stories and I feel a responsibility, not just as their elected representative but as someone who is genuinely inspired by their strength, to recount their stories today, and to remind this chamber of the power of a voice. I don't pretend that this Voice to parliament will guarantee transformative justice for First Nations people in the country overnight—no-one does. But for too long First Nations people have been ignored when governments have made policies that directly affect their land, their families and their communities. That approach is failing people. This Voice is about making sure that First Nations people are listened to when the government creates policies that directly affect them.

A successful 'yes' referendum is not where the fight for justice for First Nations people ends. The Greens were the first party in this place to fully endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It means Voice, it means truth and it means treaty, and we won't stop fighting for these crucial elements until they're recognised and implemented. A strong 'yes' result will tell this place that it can no longer ignore calls from First Nations peoples for justice. A strong yes will tell this place that transformative justice includes truth-telling and treaty; protecting country; justice; and stopping deaths in custody. Diaspora communities across our country are listening. They're mobilising in support of a 'yes' vote. This coming weekend I'll be joining the Bangladeshi community in Lakemba for another event discussing the importance of the Voice in their community.

This fight does not start or end with a successful referendum. We cannot let this referendum fail because, if nothing changes, then nothing changes! This is a moment for change. We all need to come together, demand better and vote yes on 14 October.

Today is a monumental day for the rights of working people in this country. It was truly special to be down at the High Court this morning with some of the Qantas workers who have been through hell over the last three years. Don Dixon, one of those Qantas workers down at the High Court today, said it best: 'It's been three years where we've gone through this unnecessary dragging through the mud. We were just ordinary ladies and gentlemen going to work; we were no-one special, but today we feel that we're special.' Today is one of those rare days where those with all the power and all the money lose and ordinary working people win. It was a victory for working people standing together in solidarity, fighting not for themselves but for justice for their mates and colleagues. It was also a victory for good Australian employers, who are sick to death of companies like Qantas using loopholes. They will get some sense of justice.

The High Court's unanimous rejection of Qantas's last-gasp appeal means that 1,700 illegally sacked workers will get some sense of justice after an act of corporate bastardry that was callous, immoral and illegal. Today's decision is the final verdict on the Alan Joyce era at Qantas. Under Alan Joyce, Qantas was transformed from an aviation pioneer into a pioneer of gaming loopholes. Alan Joyce split the Qantas workforce into 38 different companies. Flight attendants are outsourced across 14 different companies, on 14 different rates of pay. They were terminated or threatened that their enterprise agreement would be terminated. Flight attendants on the verge of tears were at a Senate inquiry in 2021, telling us how Alan Joyce had destroyed their livelihoods and thrown their lives into turmoil. Qantas airport staff saw their jobs under attack. I've had long-serving Qantas Business Lounge staff coming to me in tears after being told to accept either a transfer to a labour hire company, on substantially less pay, or to lose their jobs. Qantas engineers and maintenance staff got it in the neck when Qantas offshored and outsourced their jobs. And of course the ground handlers have today got some long-overdue justice.

But even with today's decision, they will not get their jobs back. There may never be another directly employed ground handler at Qantas again. That is Joyce's and Goyder's legacy at Qantas—a workforce permanently splintered and destroyed. One of the key triggers for the Qantas lockout in 2011, which stranded tens of thousands of people around the world, was that workers wanted a commitment from Joyce that he would not outsource their jobs for lower pay. That was 12 years ago, and he we are today.

But it would be wrong for me to put the responsibility wholly on Alan Joyce's shoulders. That would be convenient for everyone else who was culpable for this disgraceful legacy. As TWU secretary Michael Kaine said this morning:

The airline cannot achieve the reset needed to survive under the same board that presided over the largest case of illegal dismissals in Australian corporate history.

And they should be starting with the chair, Richard Goyder. The offence they have been convicted of today may not be a criminal offence, but in my mind you are criminals—you are corporate criminals. Together, Alan Joyce and Richard Goyder are a corporate criminal who destroyed the lives of 1,700 workers and their families illegally. Just as Qantas finally acknowledged that Mr Joyce is not fit to be the Qantas CEO, Mr Goyder is not fit to be the Qantas chair. That much is blatantly clear. It's also questioned whether it's appropriate for Mr Joyce to remain chair of the Sydney Theatre Company and Mr Goyder chair of the AFL. Is it appropriate that vital cultural institutions in this country are run by convicted corporate laggards? Well, I think it isn't.

The compensation and fines that will be awarded by the Federal Court will not come out of the pockets of those people who deserve to have it come out of their pockets; it will come out of the pockets of Qantas workers, customers and shareholders. We cannot have a situation where Mr Joyce and Mr Goyder have been found guilty of such a heinous act but are permitted to go on being darlings of high society in this country. It even remains possible that Mr Joyce is going to walk away with $24 million this year. To this very day, Mr Goyder refuses to make any criticisms of Mr Joyce and refuses to take a position on his bonus. After today's decision, that is not tenable.

Of course, Mr Joyce and Mr Goyder could not have gotten away with the illegal and systematic destruction of the national carrier without the support of the previous government. Joyce's cronies in the Liberal and National parties gave him support at every step. Back in December 2020, shortly after the outsourcing was announced, I asked the employment minister, Senator Cash, whether she supported Qantas's decision. She said, 'This is a commercial decision for Qantas, and Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' I'll say that again, so those opposite can hear it loud and clear. The minister said, 'Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' That was the official position of a Liberal and National government on the illegal outsourcing.

What is disgraceful as the obedient act of bootlicking. Let's not lose sight of what the coalition leadership were actually supporting when they supported Mr Joyce's illegal outsourcing. Damien Pollard, one of the Qantas workers who was down at the High Court this morning, said:

The last three years have been horrendous for my colleagues and myself, a lot of us are struggling to gain other employment, there's been relationship breakdowns and people that have had to sell their houses …

He said, 'We were doing a fantastic job, and just because there was an ingrained hatred of a unionised workforce, they'll look for any window of opportunity to get rid of us, and that was soul destroying.'

That's what the Liberal and National leadership supported. And how dare anyone accuse the government of being too friendly with Joyce, when you come in here day after day and use the talking points on what it was okay to do to illegally destroy the lives of 1,700 families—even today, when the Labor government is trying to close the very loophole that Joyce used to illegally outsource these jobs. The Liberal and National leadership are defending the loophole, and Joyce's mates in the Business Council are defending the loophole. BHP and other companies have seen what Joyce has done to Qantas and they are saying this is a recipe for everyone else—this time, just do not say it because people are exercising union rights. As the ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, said this morning, 'While this is one victory, this behaviour will not stop unless a parliament passes the closing the loopholes bill.' I can promise you all we will not stop fighting to close the Joyce loophole. For the 1,700 people who won in court today and for the thousands of other Australians who have fallen victim to this rort, we will continue to fight until it is closed. And for Qantas, it is time to do the right thing.

Qantas told the Federal Court that workers should not be reinstated because they would just sack them again anyway. In a press statement today they tried to say the Federal Court said that's what should happen. It was Qantas saying that to those workers and those families, those 50-year-olds and 60-year-olds who spent decades working for that company. That's what they did. It is their responsibility, They have to carry it around their neck and so does Mr Goyder.

I will say this to Vanessa Hudson: you may not be legally obliged to employ those people because of the loophole in the legislation. But you are morally obliged to pay compensation and offer everyone of those workers who want to return to a decent and fair job with proper compensation, because I for one will be watching.

This week we are being encouraged to ask R U OK? It is an important thing to ask and I think we should be doing it every day, not just this week. It's a time to stop and reflect on our mental wellbeing and the wellbeing of family and friends but it has me reflecting on what we're doing in this place about mental health. On R U OK day, politicians of all colours will post on social media, glossy yellow pictures will fill up your feeds and people will post heartfelt messages about the importance of mental health. But are we taking steps forward to make things better for people with mental health issues? It is something people in Tasmania ask me about a lot. It is not unusual for a person in Tasmania to wait three months, six months or even eight months to see a psychologist. It's a really hard thing for someone to put their hand up and ask for help. We tell people to do it all the time. But it is pretty terrible when they are finally able to take that step and we cannot help them. If it has taken a while to work up the courage to ask for help, you probably can't afford to wait another eight months to get it.

I have read horror stories from constituents trying to access mental health assistance. They highlight different areas where there are gaping holes in the system. A close friend of mine was diagnosed bipolar disorder. One night he was having suicidal thoughts. He is a dad and a husband. He drove himself to the Mercy hospital to get help but, as he was driving there, he thought about driving into a tree to end his life. He was seen pretty quickly at the hospital but they did not have the facilities to care for him. My friend was told to drive to the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie, where he could get care in the mental health facility. So the doctor told my friend to drive 40 minutes to another hospital, even though he was having thoughts of taking his life—wrapping his car around a hydro pole.

Another young woman went to see a doctor to get the mental health plan to see a psychologist. She had been self-harming and having suicidal thoughts. I actually know this girl; she is a great girl. Before he would sign off on the mental health plan, the doctor told this young woman to go home and write her own eulogy so she would know how her family would feel if she took her own life. That young woman says she still feel sick to the stomach when she thinks about that conversation.

I know a lot of people are receiving good care from professionals for their mental health issues but there are also a lot of people out there that we are letting down and I think we can be doing more. Last year the Labor government stopped the extra 10 subsidised mental health sessions under the better access scheme. These should not have been stopped without another alternative in place, even though I know we have a plan coming. There are ways we can do things better but this has left a gaping hole in the care people are able to receive. People with complex needs are now rushing in the sessions they do have and aren't getting the full care they require. It's leading to further pressures on an already overwhelmed health system.

We have a critical workforce shortage in the mental health sector, and we need to look at pathways for people to study psychology and related fields. But that'll take years, and people need help now. The government should consider expanding Medicare rebates to provisional psychologists to help address the severe waiting times for help. There are around 8,000 provisional psychologists across Australia, and in Tasmania that would mean 150 extra professionals ready tomorrow to provide subsidised sessions.

We also need to go back to the recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. I can't count how many inquiries we've spent a lot of time on and whose recommendations we've then tossed aside. The committee made 44 recommendations, and they need to be seriously considered and addressed.

The government should also publicly release the National Mental Health Workforce Strategy report. There are probably some great ideas in there, but, when they won't put out the report, who knows? When we're committing $60 million in the budget towards implementing a strategy, I think the parliament and the public should know what that is.

These things won't single-handedly fix our mental health system, and even if we do all these things there'll still be a lot of work to be done. But it's important to show all Australians, particularly young people, that we're actively working on improving things in this space It's time to reach out and say: 'You're not alone. You're not in this alone. We've got your back.' Please ask your mates, your friends or a stranger, 'Are you okay?' If you love them, ask them if they are really okay.

TERLE () (): Boy, what a day today! What a day! It's no news to this chamber after that brilliant contribution from my friend for 30-odd years and colleague Senator Tony Sheldon. It's a hard act to follow. We know what's happened today with Qantas and the High Court decision.

There are six names I want to read out to give a special 'thank you' to them: Michael Kaine, Nick McIntosh, Tim Dawson, Richie Olsen, Mike McNess and Ian Smith. These men are the national committee of management of the TWU, the Transport Workers Union. A couple of years ago, when those crooks at Qantas, led by Mr Joyce—it hurts me to say 'Mr Joyce'—and ably backed up by the board, decided that it was a great idea to illegally sack 1,700 workers at Qantas, these men made the decision, after 1,700 families were thrown on the scrap heap, that, no matter what the cost and against all the legal advice they were getting, they would take the stand that these 1,700 people were members of the Transport Workers Union and they deserved the backing of the TWU to the very end. The Transport Workers Union backed them all the way.

It was at enormous cost, with enormous bills, but those six men did not falter, because they had to do the right thing—what was right by those 1,700 families that Joyce, Goyder and the rest of the crooks at Qantas, rubbing their hands together, threw on the scrap heap while they were making these enormous profits and taking taxpayers' dollars off all of us. They took $2.8 billion from taxpayers and put it into their coffers—not to mention the $570 million of flights that were booked and not taken because of COVID and all of that. If you go to Woolies, Bunnings or Coles and say, 'I bought something, and I've brought back the receipt,' you get your money back. With Qantas, no way: 'We'll keep your money and put it in our pockets or piggy bank, and maybe we'll give you a flight, but we'll jack up the price of the flights so you can't afford it anyway.'

Now I want to read another list of names, and I am keeping my emotions in check, because I really like to speak as I used to when I was a truck driver: Richard Goyder, the group chairman of Qantas; Maxine Brenner, board member, Qantas; Jacqueline Hey, board member, Qantas; Belinda Hutchinson, board member, Qantas; Michael L'Estrange, board member, Qantas; Todd Sampson, board member, Qantas; Antony Tyler, board member, Qantas; Doug Parker—I don't know Mr Parker, who only just joined the board in May, and I bet he wishes to Christ he hadn't answered that phone call when he got it, but he only joined in May and he's the only one who's had any airline experience, so I'll leave him aside for now; and Dr Heather Smith, with all these initials—PSM, FAIIA—board member, Qantas. These are the white-collar criminals who ticked off on this illegal behaviour that was invented by Joyce and Goyder. They gave it the big tick and said: 'Go ahead. Throw those 1,700 loyal workers under that truck going past, because we're going to outsource their jobs.' The jobs weren't gone; they were outsourced. Those names that I've read to you have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in Qantas shareholders' money, rubbing their hands together for their bonuses. How in the hell, with the damage that has been done to this iconic company in this nation, do they get out of bed each morning, look in the mirror and like what is looking back at them?

We know Mr Joyce has jumped in the pointy end of a Qantas plane and has taken off. Let's not forget that Mr Joyce is going to get a $15 million bonus for this disgraceful criminal behaviour. It doesn't matter to him. He's off; he's gone. Let's not forget that it's the same Mr Joyce who sold, I think, two million shares that he had in Qantas six weeks before the announcement of the profits. I think the whole package he's walking away with is worth $24 million. Those names that I read out—Goyder and company—the whole damn lot of them are just as complicit in this criminal behaviour.

Where is their fortitude? They put out such a weak apology today. They didn't apologise. To the Qantas shareholders: how the hell can you keep these people in a job? The fines that are coming will be running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The shareholders should be demanding that Goyder and the rest of these criminals that backed him and Joyce should be on the way out and making sure the door doesn't hit them on the bum on the way out.

Domestic violence is insidious in Western Australia and is an absolute blight on our community. WA police statistics show the number of family related offences reported increased by almost 35 per cent last year, compared to the five-year average. In the last financial year, they also reported that incidents of family assault and threatening behaviour within a family context rose by more than 15 per cent, with almost 3,000 incidents reported in June alone. Recent figures from the ABS reveal that WA has the third-highest rate of domestic violence in the country, behind Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Bear in mind, these are only the reported incidents. Statistics show 60 per cent of victims-survivors don't go to police.

From 1 July 2012 to 20 June 2022, there were 154 family and domestic violence fatalities in Western Australia. There have been more since. In December 2022, Lynn Cannon was stabbed to death by her ex-husband, who was jealous of her new relationship. In April this year, Emmerich Lasakar was stabbed to death by her partner while their two daughters were home. One of them called triple 0 in an attempt to save her life. Georgia Lyall was shot in the head at her home by her ex-partner, who then took his own life. Less than two weeks later, Tiffany Woodley, a mother of three, was bashed to death by her former partner at her home on 7 August.

These attacks are, of course, horrific and despicable. Alison Evans, the Chief Executive of the Centre for Women's Safety and Wellbeing—WA's peak body for women and children affected by gender based violence—said: 'This is a crisis. This is a pandemic in its proportions.' She's right; I completely agree. It's not enough for us to share our sympathies, some sympathetic sentiments and promise platitudes. And launching action plan after action plan is not the answer to combating this scourge of family and domestic violence. This nefarious violence should not be running rampant. It's a public health and human rights crisis. We must do more to protect vulnerable women and children in our community. The family and domestic violence sector knows how to be effective. They understand what needs to happen to stop the bloodshed, but they don't have the capacity to keep up with the high demand on their resources. So we must continue to support the sector so that they can do the work they know needs to be done. They know the issues on the ground, and they know what funding and resources are need and where they need to go.

When spent wisely, funding has the potential to enhance the safety of women. It can contribute to financing crucial legal services tailored to supporting women in need that can facilitate the construction of emergency shelters and support the creation of affordable housing options. It can assist women who face obstacles like being denied bank accounts and opportunities for careers, enabling them to require resources for a fresh start. But money itself won't fix the problem. It also takes cultural change, a painfully slow progress but progress that must be made for the sake of these lives.

Western Australia is sick of the violence, of women being killed in their homes. Frankly, it is happening far too often. We need real action, and everyone has to take responsibility. The state Labor government must begin by listening to the calls from the sector and community and step up and show leadership in this crisis.

I want to speak today about the South Melbourne Centrelink office, which Services Australia have announced will close in October. This closure is going to have a major impact on so many residents in South Melbourne and surrounding areas. By closing this office, Services Australia is making it harder for constituents to access the help they need. People on Centrelink payments are already doing it incredibly tough, and it's about to go from bad to worse. Not only are income support payments way below the poverty line, but now it is going to be much for tougher for many of those who are accessing those inadequate payments. it would be that much tougher for many of them.

The closure of the South Melbourne Centrelink office will mean that people seeking help in person will need to spend more time in travelling to other offices and to pay for that travel—travel expenses they just can't afford. Local resident and retired community worker Kerry has told me that the closure of the South Melbourne Centrelink office will mainly affect the most vulnerable and marginalised locals—homeless people, those with disabilities, some older people and others who lack access to digital devices or simply find them challenging. Kerry notes that homeless people flock to the inner city due to the abundance of services. Obviously, when you're sleeping rough your access to an internet connection or charger is limited, so you need face-to-face services, not some disembodied voice at the end of a phone line who, Kerry says, has probably got productivity targets to meet and may round off the call or flick you to another section.

Kerry has made the really important point that when you're living in precarious circumstances but still have to report your earnings every fortnight to Centrelink, it can be a lot easier to just present at the local office then to find a working phone line or public computer. And as the JobSeeker rate is still abysmal, some people just can't afford to keep their phone or laptop in credit for the whole fortnight. Reporting in person is cheaper than buying a recharge voucher. Kerry's view was that both state and federal Labor governments have broken their social contract. Shutting down Centrelink offices is the sort of heartless cutback that we would expect from a Liberal government. This closure is a decision that places an unnecessary burden on people who are already facing financial hardship. We should be making it easier for them to access support, not making it harder.

Punitive income support systems designed by current and previous governments and their agencies exist to punish people in poverty rather than help them, and this situation in South Melbourne is no different. If this last year of the Labor government has shown anything it's that they do not take tackling poverty seriously. This Labor government continue to give Services Australia a free pass to make peoples lives harder.

Let's also consider the timing of the decision. Poverty is impacting so many Australians, and it's only getting worse. With skyrocketing rents and months of inflation, it's currently impossible for people existing on JobSeeker payments to get by without relying on charity. Not being able to afford nutritious food, education, housing and the resources to get a job is having a significant impact on people's physical health and their mental wellbeing. The Greens continue to demand that the Labor government raise the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line and provide people with a guaranteed liveable income. Now we also have to ask that people on income support payments have the ability to directly access support in a service centre, where they can talk to staff in person.

I want to question Labor's apparent disdain for this particular area of Melbourne, where recently the state Labor government forcibly evicted 68-year-old Margaret Kelly, a public housing resident at the Barak Beacon estate in Port Melbourne, effectively to privatise the land with a huge and unnecessary redevelopment. The neighbouring suburb of South Melbourne, which is facing an imminent Centrelink office closure, and Port Melbourne, once the site of a wonderful, supportive public housing community, are both victims of Labor's bizarre and hurtful attacks on low-income people.

To the member for Macnamara in the other place: this is your electorate; there are almost 10,000 people on JobSeeker in your electorate. Where are you? Where is your party? The people who elected you are being punished by your government simply for accessing in-person income support.

I implore the Labor government to reverse the decision to close the South Melbourne Centrelink office and prove to the community that their needs are being heard.

I rise to speak on boosting small-business productivity in Australia. According to the 2021 Intergenerational report, labour productivity has contributed more than 80 per cent of the growth in Australia's living standards over the last 30 years, yet productivity growth in the decade to 2020 was the lowest it had been in the past 60 years. The Treasurer was right, then, to speak recently of 'the need to turn around Australia's longstanding sluggish productivity performance'. But what I'm hearing from small-business owners is that, far from producing more output in less time, they are working more hours on weekends and at night than ever before just to stay afloat. They are struggling with rising costs and, now, flatlining consumer spending, and they feel unseen and unsupported by policymakers.

The government seem willing to make the regulatory environment increasingly complex for small businesses, without sufficient consideration of the negative impact their decisions could have on small-business productivity. As part of the recent inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee into the role of small businesses in administrating the Commonwealth paid parental leave scheme, we heard from frustrated small-business owners who fully support paid parental leave, believing it's a great step forward as a country to commit to increasing it, but don't understand why they are required to administer a government payment. One small-business owner, a hairdresser, pointed out the impact of these kinds of unnecessary administrative burdens, saying:

You just have to deal with it and find the time in your week, probably at the expense of something else [like] spending time with my children.

We should be looking for opportunities to help streamline the activities of small-business owners, encourage the growth of their businesses and boost the productivity of their workforce.

Something I've found inspiring is my interaction with local small-business owners in the ACT. These people overwhelmingly want to contribute positively to their communities. They are ambitious; they want to spend their time solving real problems. And it's good for the economy when small businesses do this. It helps ensure a diversity of players in different markets, which leads to more innovation, more-competitive prices and consistent productivity growth. But a recent survey by CPA Australia covering 11 economies in the Asia-Pacific found that Australian businesses were the least likely to innovate by introducing a unique new product over the coming 12-months. We should be concerned about that. We want our small-business owners focusing their time on improving their goods and services and introducing new ones, not worrying about whether or not they are complying with complex laws.

Adopting new technologies is vital to innovation and productivity but it can be costly. Well-designed government incentives can help boost small-business productivity by subsidising expenditure on technological upgrades. That is why the government legislated a technology investment tax incentive in late June of this year, but this incentive expired a couple of weeks after the bill passed, leaving no time for small-business owners to become aware of and benefit from the measure.

We need to focus more on small business in this place and make it easier for small-business owners.

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

I rise on a brighter note than I did a few minutes ago. I want to talk about the fine work being done up in Fitzroy Crossing in God's country over in WA, the best state of the greatest country, Australia. We all know that Cyclone Ellie came through in December last year and destroyed the Fitzroy River Bridge. For those of you who don't know, they say it was a once-in-a-lifetime event; no one expected this amount of rain, but it came through and took the bridge out. It also shut down Highway One. It's called Highway One for a reason, which is that it's the only bitumen road between Perth and Darwin and it goes all the way around Australia to link it up. You can imagine the damage that was done. Unfortunately, two lives were lost a couple of days after the bridge went, and 92 homes were destroyed.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Shaun. I know Shaun—he heads up the alliance up there to fix the bridge. It is an alliance comprising Giorgio Group, BMD Constructions and BG&E to build the new bridge. I caught up with Shaun when in Fitzroy about three weeks ago. He was beaming because things are going along fantastically. It's great news. The best part is there are over 100 Aboriginal people employed on the reconstruction of the bridge. That is magnificent for that part of the world. Jobs were created—unfortunately, through a disaster—that weren't there before. There has also been about $7 million pumped into Aboriginal-owned enterprises in Fitzroy and the Fitzroy Valley. It's a magnificent situation. The best part is it is funded entirely by the federal and state governments. I congratulate the Albanese government and the Cook government for not mucking around, getting straight into it and rolling the dollars out. Seeing all these Aboriginal people employed in Fitzroy is a magnificent thing on its own.

I am sure other senators and MPs in this place have been receiving correspondence in recent days from people furious that they have been spammed by Senator Nampijinpa Price, from the Liberal-National coalition, on the Voice, asking: 'Why? How did they get my personal details? How can this happen?' Unfortunately, politicians are exempt from the spam act, just as we are from the truth-in-advertising laws when it comes to political campaigning. I understand the frustration. On behalf of perhaps many politicians here, I apologise to these Australians. But I hope everyone around the country who has received this spam channels their anger and now finally understands that there is nothing the Liberals and Nationals won't stoop to to win this debate and inflict a defeat on the Albanese government for their own base, political purposes. They are prepared to throw the pathway to reconciliation with our First Nations people under the bus.

I know Australians were angry when they got spam from Clive Palmer at the last election but, unlike a billionaire who has too much money and time on his hands, and a very serious 'look at me' complex, this is the opposition in this parliament that are doing this. This is politics and it is the most shameful campaign I have seen in my time. The 'do anything, say anything, whatever cost to win' modus operandi of the conservative side of politics. This vote is not just about the Voice. This vote is about what kind of country we want to be. I ask Australians to channel their anger and make sure they don't support the 'no' campaign. (Time expired)

GG () (): Financial advice is now virtually unaffordable in Australia. The average piece of financial advice costs $5,000. That is largely a result of enormous regulatory costs which have been placed upon small businesses. The government have done nothing to improve the affordability and accessibility of financial advice, and the minister, Stephen Jones, who sat on its hands for 12 months without a policy, has said that there will be some reforms, maybe by 2024. This is going to make a bad situation even worse. You have a government that is not prepared to move to ensure people can get financial advice. Of course, the government's idea for financial advice is we get it all from our super fund, because, in the government for vested interests, the only people those opposite get out of bed for are the unions and the super funds. It is a distorted way of thinking and a very sick approach to being the government of Australia.

One of the consequences of this is the government has allowed a new tax to be placed on small financial planning businesses. Now every single financial advisor has been forced to pay $3,200 to ASIC rather than just $1,000, so it is a massive increase and massive new tax on individual advisors because the government has allowed ASIC to place this new tax on these small businesses. All that means is that people will not be able to afford to get financial advice, the regulatory cost on these businesses will be crippling, and there will be fewer and fewer advisors and higher and higher costs in the future.

Today's unanimous decision by the High Court was a victory for 1,700 workers. Three court judgements have now found it was illegal. I congratulate the workers on their hard-fought campaign alongside their union, the TWU. Damien, a 12-year veteran of Qantas who was sacked along with his colleagues, said this morning, 'The last three years have been horrendous for my colleagues and me. This is redemption for us today.' But the decision does not relieve the fact that Qantas has successfully used the Joyce labour loophole to split its workforce across 38 companies, including the disgraceful outsourcing of 1,700 people during the pandemic. Joyce's loophole has been used to destroy the fair pay and working conditions that Qantas workers used to enjoy and, in doing so, has set a blueprint that other employers like BHP are now using to do the same thing.

It is imperative that parliament passes the Albanese Labor government's closing-the-loopholes bill to ensure the dreadful treatment of those 1,700 workers by Qantas does not occur to other Australian workers as it is now. It is not surprising the Liberals and Nationals oppose closing the Joyce loopholes but it shows what they really are—a hammer that companies like Qantas and BHP will use to smash the Australian middle class.

Three years ago, 1,700 Australians were subject to degrading and inhumane treatment by their employer, while the Liberal and Nationals government stood by and explicitly cheered them on. Mr Dutton has stood by Qantas and Mr Joyce at every stage of this trial, while the Labor government has intervened in the case to support the workers. There could not be a clearer choice and decision about which side they are on.

I rise to respond to Marcia Langton's dismissal of the no voters as racist and stupid. It has been further revealed that, at an event in Brisbane in July this year, she accused no voters of spewing racism. So much for the positive and respectful debate we have been promised by the Prime Minister and Noel Pearson—right. A defining feature of the divisive yes campaign has been the hypocrisy, arrogance and overreach of its leaders like Ms Langton. It is no wonder they are leaking votes to the no side every time they open their mouths.

Support for the no vote has grown because more Australians realise that a treaty and the enormous amount of money it will cost them are the real end game. This has been confirmed many times by yes campaign leaders themselves, no matter how many times they deny it. It is too late. If anyone is looking stupid today, it is Marcia Langton and the yes campaign for continuing to deny it. She owes the Australian people a public apology. If you won't be honest with the Australian people about the real aims of the Voice, they have no reason to trust you and every reason to vote no.

Marcia Langton has proven herself to be a really nasty piece of work. I call on the government to condemn her insulting comments, kick her out of the yes campaign and ensure this horrid, racist individual will never be part of the Voice should the worst happen and the yes campaign is successful. I call on those people out there who are concerned about handing out 'no' pamphlets. I say, 'Do it,' because, at the end of the day, you might get a little bit of abuse from people like Marcia Langton for an hour or so, but then again, if you don't do it, you're going to cop abuse for the rest of your life. That's what will happen. I say, 'Get out there and hand out the pamphlets,' because it's important to your future and for this nation.

The Labor government's industrial relations agenda is killing small business. At every turn of government policy, the Labor Party are hitting small business with blow after blow, just to appease their union campaign financiers. A family-run local community pharmacy in Western Sydney wrote to me recently regarding the impact that the government's policy would have on them. They told me that they would likely have to cut staff from their mostly female workforce; across the economy, we would see up to 20,000 job losses in a sector that mostly employs women; and a reduction in opening hours means that local communities, especially busy working families, have less access to pharmaceutical services, longer wait times and fewer free services. There are many other levers for the government to pull to make medicines cheaper that don't involve passing the cost on to community pharmacies. Instead, they pulled the lever that hurts small business and only stands to benefit the big-box pharmacy chains by pushing community pharmacies out of business.

The government's crusade on small business doesn't stop there. The Same Job, Same Pay policy is nothing more than an attack on employers of independent contractors disguised under the politically convenient banner of 'workers' rights'. Many people, including many women, choose to be contractors because of the flexibility that it offers them and their families. They play a significant role in our economy, filling very specific gaps in the market where it doesn't make sense for a company to employ someone permanently. The government's policy will take away these contractor rights and distort the labour market. The government must stop infringing on the liberties of employers and employees.

I just want to put on the record, after some of the comments that have been said earlier this afternoon and this morning, that I would encourage Australians out there to look through the vitriol that is going on here in the Senate and to come back to what the original intent of the referendum is all about—that is, an advisory body made up of First Nations people who can advise the government and the parliament of the day on matters that impact them: low life expectancy, suicides and low birth weights.

I thank all of those supporters wanting to see this referendum succeed. To those thousands and thousands and thousands of Australians who are doing everything they can to reach out across the country amidst such hatred and hurtfulness that is going on time after time, I thank you for the work that you are doing. I say to Australians: this will make a difference. If we have a yes, this will make a difference to the lives of First Nations people in this country, who are three per cent of the population. It actually won't impact you, but it will impact those First Nations people who need to know that they have a place in this country where they are recognised as the First Peoples of this country and where they can have their children grow to an elderly age without dying earlier from the chronic disease that is so treacherous across our nation in terms of all the failures that we have around health conditions. This is about a Voice to Parliament. Please listen to First Nations people.

We are marking one year since the tragic death of 'Jina' Mahsa Amini, who died in police custody after being arrested and beaten by Iran's morality police. Her horrific death sparked a mass movement in Iran. People from all walks of life joined together against the brutal regime. We saw incredible protests across Iran and the diaspora, and people from across the world joined in, including in Australia. Proudly, women are leading this revolution. We must acknowledge her Kurdish identity and the feminism of Kurdish women for an inclusive society and their struggle against an oppressive state. To this day, women and girls in Iran continue to march for freedom and lead with powerful acts of civil disobedience.

Women in Iran are sick and tired of patriarchy and authoritarianism, which strives to control every aspect of their lives. They are taking action. They are not backing down, despite brutal repression. They are some of the bravest people on the planet, and I am in awe of their courage. We have mourned 'Jina' Mahsa Amini's loss and we have been inspired by the incredible strength in the movement as women, girls and allies call for change with such determination.

The Labor government took far too long to take the little action that they announced today, but they are still not listening. The Greens are with you. We will continue to support you and to amplify your voices. We will continue to call for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation and we will continue to call on the international community to strongly condemn the ongoing human rights abuses. Things will change. The fire of change that has been ignited will only burn brighter. You are a formidable force and I am with you all the way.

Jin, jiyan, azadi. Zan, zindagi, azadi!

I rise to congratulate Novak Djokovic on winning the US Open at the weekend to equal Margaret Court's record 24 grand slam victories. His 24 grand slam titles are especially commendable given he has spent the last few years playing not just against tennis players but against governments around the world. The world's greatest tennis player was denied by the Biden administration the opportunity even to compete at the US Open in 2021 and 2022 because he was unvaccinated, but, as senators well know, it was not only the White House who trampled on his right to play his sport. It was also our own government here, the Morrison government, that acted very disgracefully, deporting Djokovic from these shores because he feared his unvaccinated status might risk public order.

A supposedly conservative government concerned about human rights abuses all over the world trampled human rights right here in Australia because of dogged ideology. It was embarrassing and shameful, a shameful period in our country's history, but freedom-loving Australians have not forgotten. Djokovic eventually returned to these shores, winning the Oz Open in 2023. They call Novak the Djoker—and for good reason. Why is that? It is because he exposed what a joke the vaccine mandates were both here and in the United States.

So congratulations to Novak, Serbia's greatest athlete. Congratulations on equalling our own Margaret Court's grand slam record, and thank you for reminding us that humility, conviction and courage in the face of bullying and intimidation can, in the end, win through.

I take this opportunity to once again highlight the urgent need for the Nicholson Road and Garden Street intersection project in Canning Vale to go ahead. Those who are familiar with this area know that this is a very busy and extremely dangerous intersection. The roundabout of Nicholson Road and Garden Street is a major traffic bottleneck. The traffic congestion in and around the intersection is significantly impacting on freight getting into and out of Canning Vale and to other parts of the community and on people getting to and from their jobs and, of course, to school. Quite simply, it's negatively impacting on productivity, which under this government is at a seven-year low.

It was apparent last year, when the Albanese government cut the initial project funding from the October budget, that this project was going to be delayed. If not, it was certainly in serious trouble. Planning works should have begun in the second half of last year, but they didn't. This is ridiculous. The ridiculous 90-day review is now up to day 135. Come on, guys; what's going on? This was announced on 1 May by the federal minister for infrastructure and has meant only further delays with the commencement of this project. At worst, the review jeopardises the project by cancelling it altogether. The locals want this project to go ahead.

Where are the federal members for Tangney and for Burt? Where have they been in advocating for this project? Have they gone to see the federal Treasurer and the minister for infrastructure and petition them for their government to not cut the funding and not have this project included in this ludicrous 90-day review? Have they done that? I don't believe they have, because there's no evidence of it.

Canning Vale residents want better community safety at this intersection, not more government reviews. They just want the federal and state governments to get on with fixing this intersection and building the overpass bridge.

This week a deceptive letter pretending to be from the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria was distributed to a town in north-west Victoria not far from my home town of Swan Hill. I felt sick hearing about this. Every Victorian should be furious about the dirty tactics being used by the 'no' campaign. They've resorted to outright lies and fearmongering because they know that, when the Australian people have the facts, they are overwhelmingly saying yes. Saying yes is saying that every Australian deserves a fair go.

While growing up in Swan Hill I sat in a classroom and had a life expectancy over a decade less than my classmates. Twenty years later my seven-year-old son faces statistics that tell us he's more likely to go to prison than he is to university. This is in our country. This is today in Australia. This is not just about me or my family. The same is true for First Nations people in your footy and netball teams around the state and in your workplaces, for First Nations people who are friends with your kids at primary school and for First Nations people who work in your local cafe or supermarket. We are people in your community. These are our communities too.

I want every Australian family to thrive and be healthy, and only by saying yes in this referendum will First Nations people have that equal chance. Only by saying yes will First Nations people see practical progress. Through the referendum on 14 October First Nations people around the country are putting their trust in communities to do the right thing. This is an invitation from First Nations people directly to you, the Australian people. For the referendum on 14 October First Nations people around the country are asking you to be armed with the facts. We've had enough of the dodgy tactics of the 'no' campaign. Let's stand together and show that our community is better than that.

Today the Senate finally passed the package of bills that set up the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is great news, but it is only the start. Tonight one in two Australian children seeking refuge in a homelessness shelter will be turned away—one in two—and that alarming statistic doesn't account for the thousands more who won't even show up asking for help. Children make up 17 per cent of Australia's homeless population, but that figure too is lower than the reality. The data doesn't accurately capture the depth of this crisis.

A fortnight ago I visited the PCYC out near the Canberra Airport. They're doing amazing work with young people. They're helping them get their lives back on track and get back into school. They're giving them the support that they need. At the end of spending time with one of the groups one of the team leaders said, 'If you have one thing to ask of politicians, what would it be?' The answer was: a homeless shelter for kids. This is the reality for a number of children in communities across the country. While there is an acute shortage of social and affordable housing we have to continue to focus on youth homelessness and having the right safe places for people to go so that they can sleep in a safe place and get the support that they need.

Unaccompanied homeless minors need to be identified in the next National Housing and Homelessness Agreement as a standalone priority cohort. Ending child and youth homelessness needs to be the next challenge we tackle.

Individual liberty is a fundamental principle that unites us all, and it is what, in liberal democracies, we fight and die for. We must never, ever allow the deprivation of the liberty of any human being. But that is exactly what is happening today in China, where up to six million people are enslaved and trafficked into all forms of slavery. Many more are detained in state sponsored so-called internment camps and boarding schools. Every single person subject to state sponsored internment and enslavement is a human being with their own aspirations and their life. They're loved, and they love others.

Let me share with you the story of one such detained person. Dr Gulshan Abbas, a Uyghur retired medical doctor, went missing five years ago on 5 September 2018. Dr Abbas was detained by Chinese authorities on so-called terrorism charges. She is one of thousands of ethnic Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities and, increasingly, Tibetans who have disappeared after being accused by the Chinese government of terrorism and extremist crimes. But Dr Abbas's real crime was being the sister of my friend Rushan Abbas, the founder of the Washington based Campaign for Uyghurs, who is one of the bravest women I know—and let me tell you: I know many brave women. Dr Abbas's arrest came shortly after Rushan spoke at the Hudson Institute on Uyghur genocide. It is clearly coercion designed to silence dissent. I remind us all here today that we must always make it clear that we will fight for anybody who is subject to the deprivation of liberty.

Everyone deserves to be safe in their workplace, and Parliament House is no exception to that. It should be the benchmark, a place that girls and women can look to and believe that they belong.

Two years ago, former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins released Set the standard, and she should be commended for her tireless work advocating reform. One thing was clear in the report: things needed to change. The accounts of bullying, sexual harassment and assault were horrific—accounts that are the result of incredible courage by those who chose to tell their stories. They forced important reflection by all of us, on both sides of the chamber, and have forced important action. We need to take this opportunity to change and improve our workplace.

That's why I'm so proud that the government in legislating the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This service will provide parliamentarians and their staff with professional support, including advising on codes of conduct, it will be capable of compelling strategic and cultural change, and it will be independent so that everyone is supported and listened to. I congratulate the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce for its work on this legislation and other reform. I think we can all agree on just important it is that this work is bipartisan and that it is beyond politics. When the nation's girls and young women look to this place, to this parliament, they should feel like they belong here. They should feel they are safe here. They should feel they have a future here, because we need more girls and young women to want to take up the responsibility and the honour of representing their communities. So, from an incredibly difficult time for this parliament, it's critical, and it's possible, for us to build a better future together. That's exactly what this suite of reforms will help deliver.

Recently I got to travel around western New South Wales and I dropped in at Dunedoo, where I ran into the Hackney family. The Hackney family are a longstanding farming family out there just on the eastern side of Dunedoo, and they see their part. They tend to the land, they have their animals and they have their crops, and they know they want to leave a better future. But they are the unintended victims of the transmission lines that are popping up all across Australia. They have a farm, and one-third of it will be unsuitable for agriculture because of power lines. They've tried to be helpful with EnergyCo. They've gone to them and said, 'How about this other route just a couple of hundred metres down on the edge of our property?' It won't segregate one-third of their property, take away the regenerational soil lands on the creek, take away their silos and their feed or take away their stock stand. EnergyCo have come back and said, 'No, we want our route where it is.' These things have to be done better. If federal money is being used, we need to make sure that we keep Australian farms productive and that people don't have to suffer unnecessarily.

We'll now move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, over the last few days we've seen widespread media reports that Marcia Langton, who is leading the 'yes' campaign, has attacked fellow Australians who intend to vote no in the upcoming referendum. As reported in the Bunbury Herald, and subsequently in the national media, Marcia Langton described their position as being 'base racism' or 'sheer stupidity'. Minister, will you join with me in condemning that type of attack and acknowledge that on 14 October, many Australians will vote no for good and sensible reasons?

Thank you to Senator Cash for the question. I'd make a few points. The first is that Marcia Langdon is a respected academic who was appointed by, from memory, your government to work on the proposed Voice to Parliament. I would also make this point that everyone comes to this debate with their own experience, but I would encourage all of us to come to this conversation in the spirit of respect and empathy and to represent people's contributions faithfully. If the question is, 'Do I agree with the accusation of racism?', no, I don't. I think this is an important moment for the nation. It's an important moment for the nation because our First Nations Australians have come to us and asked us to listen. The request from First Nations Australians comes at the end of a long process, and I think it is incumbent upon all of us to engage openly and honestly. Every Australian has a vote, and every Australian is entitled to their own opinion, but people aren't entitled to their own facts. The national conversation should be based on fact, not fear. Those of us in this—

People can look at this conversation right now and see which of us is behaving respectfully for different opinions, Senator Cash. We set the tone here in this chamber. We have a responsibility to engage honestly and to call out misinformation and dishonesty and division wherever we see it. I would hope this could be a moment of unity. We owe it to those who've been involved in years of work, from those at the First Nations constitutional dialogues to the Uluru Statement from the Heart to the legislation passed here in the chamber and the referendum itself. I'd urge fact, not fear, to be the basis of this discussion.

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

Minister, will you join me in acknowledging that many Australians who are considering voting no in the upcoming referendum—and that actually includes a large number of Labor voters—are doing so because they feel, on a good and principled basis, that the proposal divides Australia on the basis of race?

I would start by saying that every Australian gets a vote and every Australian will come to this and make their own decision about how they want to vote in the upcoming referendum. I and those of us on this side and some even on that side would urge Australians to listen to what is being proposed and to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in what is a modest ask—an ask for a committee, which will be legislated, including with the input of those opposite, to try and ensure we get better outcomes for our First Nations peoples. What I would say is that, again, it was disappointing to see there are some in this debate who are talking about running on fear. And I would say to Australians— (Time expired)

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Minister, will you then join me in acknowledging that Australians who do vote no in the upcoming referendum are neither racist nor stupid and that, in fact, Australians who vote no will do so because they feel that that is in the best interests of our country? Will you join with me in acknowledging this simple fact?

I believe that Australians are people of good heart, and I believe that Australians take their responsibility seriously. And I have—

An opposition senator interjecting—

Well, I will use my words, actually. And I will respect, as all of us should, that Australians will come to different views about this, and they're entitled to. All of us are entitled to; we all have a vote. I would say that I would urge that the way in which we conduct this debate be respectful, that the debate recognises the different life experiences that we all bring to this discussion, that it would recognise that there are different views, and that we pause at least—and this is what I would ask of Australians—to listen to what is being asked for. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It is just over one month before Australians head to the polls to vote on the referendum on a Voice to Parliament. Can the minister explain to the Senate how the Voice is an opportunity to bring Australians together and help achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? And can the minister outline why the government supports constitutional recognition through a Voice to Parliament?

I thank Senator Payman for her question. I thank her for her genuine interest in closing the gap and for her determination to build a better future for all Australians. On 14 October all of us—every Australian—will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring our country together and to change it for the better, to vote for recognition and listening so we get better results.

Constitutional recognition through a Voice is the form of practical reconciliation that Indigenous Australians requested as part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is supported by an overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Voice will offer ideas and advice so governments can make better decisions to address the challenges facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is an advisory committee made up of representatives from across the country. It won't have the power to make or veto government's decisions. What it will do is improve outcomes in Indigenous health, housing, education and employment.

Australians from all walks of life are coming together, united in their support for a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution. Meanwhile, we have the 'no' campaign, who've put forward many varying reasons for their opposition in their campaign. But what is noteworthy is that Mr Dutton has in fact promised not one but two referendums—another referendum on constitutional recognition—although I note that his shadow minister for Indigenous affairs has publicly stated that she does not support it. So, more politics, more political games, because Mr Dutton didn't do something when he had the chance. And now that someone else is to trying to do something, he wants to tear it down. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, a first supplementary?

Thank you—

Sorry, Senator Payman. Senator Nampijinpa Price?

A point of order, President: at no point have I ever suggested that I do not support—

That's a debating point, not a point of order. Please resume your seat. I invite you to make whatever statements you want to outside of question time, at other times.

It is not a point of order. Please resume your seat.

Senator Nampijinpa Price, I have asked you twice to resume your seat. Please resume your seat. As the President it's my authority to direct you to resume your seat. Resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senators on my left and right.

Take your seat!

Senator O'Neill, I will remind you, as the President, it is my job to control order in this place and that was very unhelpful.

On the point of order, if I may, Senator Nampijinpa Price has raised an issue. If I have made an incorrect reflection, I am always happy to withdraw it. I would invite her to, at an appropriate time, make a contribution to the chamber. I believe that that was what was reported and I represented that according to public reports. But if that is incorrect, of course, we will do you the courtesy of ensuring you have the opportunity later in proceedings to do that.

Senator Payman, a first supplementary?

There have been a number of reports on respective campaigns on the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament. Can the minister please update the Senate on how those campaigns are being conducted as Australians prepare to vote on October 14?

(—) (): It was quite disturbing and I would hope that Senator Cash and others who are urging a higher tone in this debate might join with me in condemning this, because it was disturbing to read in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald and Age that the no campaign has instructed volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to trump the arguments used by the yes campaign. I look forward to Senator Cash joining with me in condemning such an approach, which is not the approach we should be taking to this discussion. This is nothing more than fear mongering by those who will do and say anything if they think it will help them politically, spreading lies and sowing fear, even when it means standing on the way of a better future for Australians. You see, this is a political tactic we have seen, regrettably, from some on the other side in so many ways. Certainly, Mr Dutton has an approach; he builds himself up by tearing things down. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, a second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for the update. Can the minister remind the Senate about efforts to achieve reform in Australia in the past. What lessons can we take from history as we seek to make progress towards a better future for all Australians?

Don't go to a referendum unless you have full support!

Senator Scarr, I am calling you to order.

(—) (): The facts are we know from what the no campaign have told Australians that they are prepared to exploit fear and put that political fight ahead of national progress. I say to those opposite: instead of interjecting and complaining about it, maybe you should do something about it. Surely, if you want this debate to be a decent debate, if you want this debate to be a debate that is worthy of the Australian people, then surely those opposite and Mr Dutton might use their leadership to ensure that we see facts not fear as the basis of the debate. We know of course that those opposite do like to resort to fear tactics. We remember words such as 'economic wasteland'. We remember an assertion that secure jobs and better pay would leave supermarket shelves bare. (Time expired)

My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. Has the Albanese Labor government finalised new guidelines for the use of special-purpose aircraft? In what year were the guidelines that are currently applicable dated or first approved?

I thank Senator McGrath for his question. Yes, I can provide some information in response to that question, Senator McGrath, and if further information is needed then I will seek to get that information after question time. The draft special-purpose aircraft guidelines 2023 have been updated to reflect the security advice ratified by the security coordination committee on 1 March 2023. In accordance with this advice, the draft guidelines will not be finalised until the transparency and accountability considerations are finalised.

Well, I'm directly answering your questions, so please listen. Until the guidelines are finalised, the government is authorising flights in accordance with the 2013 guidelines. The use of special-purpose aircraft is being reported, reflecting the security advice and the updated draft guidelines. As I said, if there's further information that I can provide then I shall do that.

Senator McGrath, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. What is the security classification of the guidelines for the use of special-purpose aircraft? If these documents are unclassified, will they be released publicly in accordance with orders of the Senate?

I thank Senator McGrath for his first supplementary question. In respect of the first part of your question, the 2013 special-purpose aircraft guidelines, as published, are classified as Official. In respect of your second question, I will need to seek some advice from the minister.

Senator McGrath, second supplementary?

According to leaked Albanese government talking points repeated by the Minister for the Environment and Water on Monday, the government is committed to providing SPA flight manifests to IPEA. However, a second leak of updated talking points removes any reference to providing manifests to IPEA. Is the government committed to providing the SPA manifests to IPEA or not, and why are the manifests not currently being provided to IPEA?

I thank Senator McGrath for his second supplementary question. I'm advised that the Royal Australian Air Force stopped providing weekly manifests to IPEA on 7 December 2021. It's a matter of public record that the Leader of the Opposition, of course, was the Minister for Defence at that time. The Minister for Defence has directed his department to continue to work with IPEA for assurance and scrutiny of public expenses, including for special-purpose aircraft. Again I repeat that, if there's any further information I can provide to you after question time, I'll come back and do that.

My question is to Minister Gallagher, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The Senate inquiry report on universal access to reproductive health care made 36 recommendations to address barriers to sexual, maternity and reproductive health care in Australia, and it was tabled in May this year. The government response to those recommendations of the report was due on 25 August. We're almost three weeks beyond that due date, with no explanation for the government's delay. Women's health should be a priority, and women are sick of waiting for policy reform. When will the government release its response to this report?

I thank Senator Waters for the question. It's an important one, and it is an important report that the Senate inquiry handed down into access to sexual and reproductive health. As Senator Waters outlined, the report did highlight a number of areas that need improvement so that women could access affordable, timely and appropriate care, including close to where they live. The government is currently working through recommendations outlined in the report, and we will table our response as soon as those are finalised. There are a large number of recommendations in the report—36 in total. The Minister for Health and Aged Care and his assistant ministers are ensuring that we get the response right, working with our state and territory colleagues and consulting with the sector and across departments. We will table our response as soon as it is finalised.

But I would also say we have already invested significant funding and begun work on several of the recommendations in the report. Over 60 per cent of the longer MBS consultations are used by women—that's those consultations that are over 20 minutes under level C items and over 40 minutes under level D items. We have committed over $99.1 million to introduce a new MBS item for consultations of 60 minutes or more to support improved access and affordability for patients with chronic conditions and complex needs, including those with mental health conditions; family, domestic and sexual violence; chronic conditions as well as reproductive health needs and matters like menopause. We've also committed $26.4 million over four years to extend support for research and data collection activities that support women's and girls' health outcomes. We welcomed the TGA's decision to remove a number of restrictions on health professionals who prescribe and dispense MS-2 Step.

Senator Waters, a first supplementary?

Women experiencing menopause struggle to get adequate treatment, but this has been exacerbated this year with the discontinuation of several brands of hormone replacement therapy transdermal patches. What will the government do to ensure that women have access to the necessary menopause treatments and that they are affordable?

I will see if there's anything more I can come back to Senator Waters with on the specifics of that, but I would say that Minister Kearney has been leading the work on this from the House of Representatives. I have seen a number of forums where she has attended and held sessions particularly on menopause and how to provide appropriate health services for women who are going through menopause. But that's not only for menopause; it's also for pelvic pain, endometriosis and a whole range of areas where we believe women's health and addressing women's health matters haven't been appropriately dealt with. I'll see if there is anything further I can add on the specifics of the treatments that you refer to, because I don't have any information about that. Making sure women going through menopause are able to access the appropriate health treatments is a priority for this government, and Mr Kearney is doing incredible work in that area.

Senator Waters, a second supplementary0

Women's pain is often minimised or not believed. In Australia, 1.8 million women live with chronic pain. Painaustralia is calling for 10 subsidised allied health visits per year to achieve effective multidisciplinary pain management. What is the government going to do to ensure that women suffering from chronic pain can get and afford the health care that they need?

I do acknowledge the question from Senator Waters on women's health and on the fact that there are barriers affecting women and their access to health care and, indeed, when they are accessing health care, the way that those conditions are responded to. There is a lot of evidence around bias in addressing women's health matters, so I acknowledge that and the senator's longstanding interest in these matters. I would say again that, under the leadership of Minister Kearney, there has been a women's health advisory group brought together, who are putting forward a women's health plan. All of the matters that you've raised in your questions would be forming part of the discussions that have been held under that. Part of my job in ensuring that we are leading in terms of gender equality across the board also includes health, and I know that that has featured in some of the work that the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce have been looking at as well. There is a lot of work happening across government— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. In the middle of the pandemic, Qantas sacked 1,700 of their ground crew workers and outsourced their jobs. Could the minister please update the Senate on the High Court decision in the Qantas Airways Limited v Transport Workers Union of Australia case regarding these sackings handed down this morning?

I thank Senator Sheldon for this question. As I've said before, Senator Sheldon is one of a number of Senators on this side of the chamber who have a long record of standing up for the Qantas workforce, a much longer record than the two weeks in which we've seen some spin type attempts from the opposition, and some of them are speaking up now. It's always good to hear from you, the National Party, when things haven't gone your way. Today, the highest court in the land has sent a clear message to Qantas that how they've treated their workers has not been up to scratch, and, in fact, it is illegal. It sends a very clear message not just to Qantas but to large companies across Australia that they need to treat their workforce with respect and not look for loopholes in the law to get around the system to undercut wages and avoid their obligations. Of course, that's exactly what this government is trying to do with the legislation we're putting to the parliament at the moment—close the loopholes. It's even in the name of the legislation.

Cases like Qantas are why we want to get on with closing those loopholes. Qantas needs to remember that it has to have a responsibility not just to its shareholders but to its workers and customers. This government, those on this side of the chamber, stood up in the public interest to support the workers who had been illegally sacked. But what did we see from the previous government? They spent taxpayer money to keep people in work during the pandemic without making it a requirement to keep people in work. Most companies honoured that principle, but Qantas took the money and sacked their workforce anyway.

Workers this morning can feel a sense of justification and redemption with the decision. I say to the Qantas workers: you did nothing wrong; Qantas broke the law and the previous government refused to stand with you. The company stood down their workforce and forced them to run down their leave balances so they could reduce the pay-out they would receive when they illegally sacked them. They have been held to account today, that is a very good thing, and all parts of this chamber should listen.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Sheldon, your first supplementary?

What did the previous government do to prevent illegal sackings while they were receiving millions of dollars of taxpayer funded pandemic support?

Senator Sheldon, I could answer your question with one word—nothing—but I'll give you a slightly longer answer. If you were to only listen to the Liberal and National parties now that they are in opposition, you would be forgiven for thinking that they might actually have grown a backbone and stood up for workers. Luckily, for the benefit of the Australian public, we kept the receipts from their time in office. When Qantas sacked and outsourced thousands of its workforce, despite receiving $2.7 billion in taxpayer support, including $900 million for JobKeeper, one coalition minister at the time said it was:

… a commercial decision for Qantas, and Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.

Which coalition minister might that have been at the time? Senator Cash! You can always rely on Senator Cash to kick workers when they're down, and that's what she did when she was a minister in the former government. The then industrial relations minister, Christian Porter, said it was 'a good model' and the then transport minister, Michael McCormack, said, 'I know the decisions are in the best interests of their company, going forward.' (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary?

There you go; you've exposed the lot of it. What is the Albanese government doing to support workers and ensure they are protected?

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. For starters, we intervene in court cases when workers' rights are on the line. We intervened in this court case and took a position because Qantas did the wrong thing. What did we see from the coalition government when they were in power? When cases went to the High Court, they did sometimes intervene. They intervened to undermine agreed conditions in enterprise agreements. They intervened to cut the rights of casuals and shiftworkers. In contrast, the Albanese government is determined to close the loopholes, and we look forward to certain groups who say they care for workers—hello, Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and Senator Pocock—voting with us to make sure that stops.

Minister, please direct your comments to the chair.

The Albanese government is acting to close various loopholes, like criminalising wage theft, getting rid of the idea of forced permanent casual workers, and giving casual workers who are working like they're permanent a chance to convert to permanent employment. As I say, we look forward to all parties in this chamber who say they care about workers voting with us and getting on with it this year. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Productivity Commission's role is to help governments make better policy in the long term for the Australian community. The new productivity commissioner, Danielle Wood, has argued there's no justification for how little Australian retirees are taxed and has called for a debate on inheritance tax to address intergenerational inequity. Will the Albanese Labor government rule out imposing an inheritance tax?

In relation to the last: no, the government is not contemplating an inheritance tax. Second—

Speaking of fear and fact—I'll take the interjection from Senator Cash and others on that side—it's really extraordinary, isn't it? They come in here demanding discussion about facts, but we see yet again a fear campaign. No, it is not government policy, nor are we proposing one.

As the Treasurer, I understand, has said, obviously Ms Wood is a well-published economist. She has written and spoken about economic policy for many years. Obviously, the Treasurer and the government may not agree with everything she has said or published, but she is an economist of great note. If I may say so, we've not had a woman head the Productivity Commission before, and in itself it is a good thing to see a woman who is so well qualified come to head that body. I think Senator Gallagher yesterday gave some information to the chamber in relation to the selection process.

I again reiterate Ms Wood has said and written many things, as you would expect from someone in her position. Not all of them are ones the Treasurer might agree with, and they certainly don't represent government policy. But the point is that we have appointed someone to head the Productivity Commission who is deeply engaged in some of today's difficult economic questions, and that is a good thing, to ensure that the government and the Australian people, as well as the parliament, can have the benefit of the advice and views of the PC. Many governments will obviously not take up everything the— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

Just to make sure of your answer, Australians pay 40 to 45 per cent tax on a new home built, and over their lives they are always paying land tax, capital gains tax, GST, stamp duty and countless other government fees and charges. Everything is taxed in this country. Does the Prime Minister support continuing to tax the families of hardworking Australians, after they die, with an inheritance tax?

Minister Gallagher?

I was just going to raise a question about whether the supplementary flows from the primary question.

Yes, I was just about to make that point. Senator Hanson, it's very difficult to see how your first supplementary is related to the primary question, but I can invite Minister Wong to answer the parts of it she wishes to.

Thank you to Senator Hanson for the supplementary. I would say first what I said in my first answer, which is that an inheritance tax is not part of the government's agenda. In relation to the Productivity Commission, obviously that is an independent body. We respect its independence, and we respect its contribution to the national discussion about economic issues as an independent body, obviously. Governments of the day won't always take the advice of the PC in its entirety, and that was the case under the previous government too.

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Ms Wood has advocated for the exclusion of almost all the value of the family home for the aged pension asset test. Will the Albanese Labor government rule out removing all or part of the family home from the aged pension asset test?

Again, I'd say that Ms Wood wrote and spoke widely on economic and tax and fiscal policy prior to her appointment. She was entitled to do so. She is a well-respected economist. As head of the Productivity Commission, her position is one of independence. The government will make its own decisions about funding for various programs, including aged care. I would make the point, Senator Hanson, that this government has invested an enormous amount into aged care, including improving the position of the workers.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson?

On relevance to the question, I never, ever mentioned aged care in my question. It was about removing all or part of the family home from the aged pension asset test.

Yes, and it was in relation to journal articles that Ms Wood had answered, and I believe the minister has been relevant to that. Minister, please continue.

I again say that the government will make its own decisions about the appropriate model for funding of aged care. The government is not adopting the position—

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson.

I have a point of order. I'll keep going back to my question: I never referred to aged care. Would the minister answer the question on inheritance tax, that they're definitely not looking at it. I'm asking for a yes or no answer to my question—

Senator Hanson, you were referring to an article written by—

No, I wasn't!

Senator Hanson, it's not for you to argue with me. I'm answering your question—

I never referred to an article, so don't say I referred to an article when I didn't.

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat! You asked about the asset test in an article written by Ms Wood. The minister was being relevant. I'm happy to remind the minister of the question in the remaining 11 seconds. Minister Wong.

I'll simply say that the government will make its own decisions about funding models and about eligibility, as we have in previous budgets. Ms Wood is— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. I refer the minister to comments made last week by the minister for transport, Catherine King, when she was asked a question by Sabra Lane on ABC Radio regarding how much the Qatar Airport security incident weighed in her decision. She said:

Well, it wasn't a factor in the decision …

Minister Farrell also advised the chamber during question time last week:

I have just travelled through Doha airport on my way back from a holiday a few weeks ago, and I personally don't see any risks.

But the transport minister also said of the incident:

… it wasn't the only factor, but it was one …

My question is very simple: was it a factor or not?

Thanks, Senator Cadell. These questions have been answered now for the best part of two weeks, so I'm not really sure what further light can be put on the question. I read the transcript from Minister King, and my recollection of it is that she said those incidents—those extremely more-than-regrettable, more-than-unfortunate incidents involving women, that shouldn't have occurred—were context for her decision. That's what I remember Minister King saying in that transcript. She, and many other ministers, have said repeatedly that the decision was made in the national interest and that there was no one factor. I'm not sure what we can add to the previous answers that we've given on this point.

What we can add on matters involving airlines, as I've already indicated, is that one airline was held to account today for its behaviour, and it was an airline that had the full support of the former coalition government when it went about outsourcing labour and sacking its workers through the pandemic, treating them with utter disrespect. We know—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr?

A point of order on direct relevance, President.

Yes, I will remind the minister of the question. Minister Watt, I will take you back to the question.

With respect, President, I believe I have largely answered the question in the first part of my answer and that I'm entitled to use the remaining 45 seconds of my answer to remind the coalition about it turning its back on Qantas workers during the pandemic—

President—

Minister Watt—

President, a point of order—

Senator Birmingham, there's no need to shout it more than once. I saw you on your feet and I was drawing the minister's attention to your point of order.

President, we did have a matter last week where a minister—and it may have been Minister Watt or a different minister—behaved in the same way, which was to say, 'I've answered the question therefore I can talk about anything I want.' As was raised in a point of order at that stage, ministers need to be directly relevant throughout their answer. There has been acknowledgement from the chair that they can make glancing references to other factors, but it's not within the standing orders for a minister to say, 'I've addressed the question, now I can make whatever points I want.' If they've given the answer, or they believe they've given the answer, it's time to sit down.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham, I appreciate your point of order. When it was raised last week, I completely agreed with you. I have drawn the minister back to the question and I will remind the minister of the point of order you made. I agreed with it last week and I'm not deviating from the custom. I remind Minister Watt of the need to be relevant to the question.

Thank you, President, you know how I always obey your rulings and listen very respectfully to them. I dare say that it's so on this occasion as well. As I said, Minister King has made clear the basis of her decision, as have a number of other ministers over the last couple of weeks.

But the question does go to the government's decision regarding Qatar Airlines. I take the opportunity to remind the chamber of when the coalition were in power and Mr McCormack was then the transport minister. In fact, in just the last couple of weeks he said: 'When I became Deputy Prime Minister and transport minister in February 2018 I made a decision to put on hold an application by Qatar Airways,' so this concept that it's only a Labor government that has ever done this is absolute rubbish. (Time expired)

Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

Minister, what is the definition of 'national aviation interest', which is a brand-new term introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister on Sunday?

Senator Cadell—

I'd roll my eyes too.

No. I'm rolling my eyes at this newborn concern that we have from the coalition about the aviation industry, its workers and consumers when they spent 10 years ignoring the interests of workers and consumers in the aviation industry. All of a sudden they've discovered that they care about these issues when they have no power to do anything about them. They had 10 years in government to do something about these issues. They completely ignored the issues regarding aviation competition, the rights of aviation workers—

Richard made it up on the spot. There's no such thing, Murray. You know that.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, your constant and very loud interjections are disorderly. I've called you to order a number of times. I expect you to come to order. Minister Watt, please continue.

As I said, at no point in 10 years did the coalition show any interest in the aviation market in Australia, its competition record, the way it treated consumers and the way it treated its workers. Of course, they didn't do anything about that. In fact, they cheered on airline companies—one in particular—when they sacked their workforce. Now, when they have lost power, they decide to take an interest in this.

Senator Cadell, second supplementary?

Several ministers, including the Prime Minister, have now made nine mostly conflicting excuses as to why the minister made his decision to prevent Australians from accessing cheaper international airfares and have invented a brand-new and now completely undefined term of 'national aviation interest'. What is the real reason the Albanese government is continuing to fail Australian travellers by keeping airfares high and stifling competition?

Senator Wong?

Point of order: there may have been a misspeak or I may have missed which minister, but I think the senator referred to 'his decision'. I assume he was referring to Minister King's decision—'her decision'.

Thank you, Senator Wong. Minister Watt?

TT (—) (): As I said and we have said now for two straight weeks, Minister King has made very clear that her decision was based on the national interest. I suspect that was the basis of the decision that Minister McCormack, as he then was, made in February 2018 when he 'put a hold on an application by Qatar Airways'. Those were his exact words from a couple of weeks ago. He was honest. At least we have one honest member of the National Party. He owned up to the fact that when he was a minister he made a decision to put on hold an application by Qatar Airways.

I haven't seen any calls from the opposition over the last couple of weeks for any of the airlines that currently have the ability under the law, under the rules, to bring more flights to Australia to actually do so. How about you join our calls on those other airlines to get more flights to Australia and relieve pressure on prices? I also take the opportunity to remind the chamber that the price of aviation tickets first went up under the coalition, so again maybe there was an opportunity for you to do something about it when you were there. (Time expired)

POCOCK () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister Watt. The price of petrol most Australians are paying has been sitting above $2 a litre for weeks. That means many Australian motorists are spending more than $100 a week, potentially more than $5,000 a year, on fuel. Adding insult to this cost, this huge expense is paid to multinational oil companies. What is the government doing to make sure Australians don't have to continue paying through the nose for transport?

I thank Senator David Pocock. I know he has an interest in electric vehicles. In fact, we took a spin around parliament in an electric ute at one point last year. We are seeing tradies, along with many other people in the community, increasingly turn to electric vehicles as a way of relieving their cost-of-living pressures. I'm certainly aware that petrol prices are pretty high at the moment and they are putting pressure on family budgets, so assisting those families who wish to move across to electric vehicles is a key policy of the Albanese government.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It's interesting, the people who are piping up: Senator Rennick, Senator Canavan. Who were the people who held us back for 10 years? It was characters like them. We've finally got to a point in this country where we have a government that doesn't run around saying that electric vehicles will end the weekend. There are more electric vehicles on the weekend. There are more electric vehicles on the weekdays as well. This government, as a result, Senator Pocock, has released Australia's first National Electric Vehicle Strategy, delivering on our commitment to provide greater choice for Australians to drive cars that are cleaner and cheaper to run.

Again, the coalition had 10 years in office to do something about electric vehicles, but, of course, all they did was run another scare campaign. It was up there with their $100 dollar lamb roasts. It was up there with ending the backyard barbecue. Electric vehicles were going to end the weekend. Well, every day when I get out on the roads, I see Teslas. I see other electric vehicles. Occasionally we get to have a weekend. We don't get a lot of weekends in this job, but a lot of Australians do, and the weekend has survived 10 years of the coalition in power and survived electric vehicles as well.

It is good to see the uptake of EV is continuing to increase, with recent figures showing that sales during the first half of this year have already passed the total from all the 2022. That's a good thing and it shows what can happen when you have a government supporting EVs.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary.

Thank you, Minister. It's good to hear that you have a strategy. I'm interested in the promise of fuel efficiency standards going into the last election. We're over a year in now. What is the time line for delivering them, because that is what will actually deliver for households who can't access electric vehicles through their business?

Minister Bowen, who of course is leading this effort with Minister King, has said that their goal is to release a draft fuel efficiency standard by the end of this year. I know that they have been meeting with a range of stakeholders on this issue, from the Electric Vehicle Council to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, to ensure they have a full cross-section of views. There are claims that you see being made from around that kind of area, saying fuel efficiency standards will increase the cost of cars, but yet again they are claims that don't stand up and are not supported by experience in the US or the EU, which have longstanding fuel efficiency standards.

What we've seen internationally is that fuel efficiency standards increase electric vehicle supply because they incentivise vehicle manufacturers to provide electric vehicles to our market to avoid penalties. As I said, the minister's intention is to release draft fuel efficiency standards by the end of this year, and there will be further consultation once that happens.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

ator DAVID POCOCK () (): It's great to hear that there is a time line. I've heard concern from stakeholders about just how long this is taking. Australia is the only OECD country without these. Russia and Australia are the two that have that mantle. We're not reinventing the wheel here. Why is it taking so long?

Good question—and the answer is right over there. There were 10 years of no action on this front, 10 years of running scare campaigns about electric vehicles, about renewables, about backyard barbecues, about lamb roasts, about Whyalla wipeouts. All those scare campaigns, and here's one of the chief offenders.

I rise on direct relevance. Senator Pocock asked a serious question that I would also like the answer to, and this minister continues to blame the opposition.

Order! That's a debating point. Minister, please continue.

It's stunning that Senator McKenzie of all people should get up and ask for an answer on this. We know that they had 10 years to do something about this, but certain ministers—I won't name anyone—were a bit busy with colour-coded spreadsheets for 10 years. Maybe that's what they were putting their time into rather than fuel efficiency standards.

Senator Pocock?

I'd also like to raise direct relevance. I asked about this government, not the former government.

Senator Pocock, your question went to why it has taken so long. The minister is being relevant, but I will remind him that in the last couple of sentences he had drifted away from the question. I'll direct him back to the question.

Senator Pocock, I would argue that, given when we came to office, we inherited zero work on the issue and had to start from scratch—as we did on so many other climate and energy related issues—the fact that by the end of this calendar year we intend to release a draft fuel efficiency standard is a good outcome. If the former government had done anything on this, it would have been a matter of implementing it, but we've had to start from scratch. I can assure you it is a priority for this government. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Senator Farrell. Earlier today, the Senate passed the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and sent the bill back to the House for consideration. It is a big step towards establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund. Given this significant development, can the minister please explain what difference the fund will make to Australians needing a safe and affordable place to call home?

I thank Senator Pratt for her question and her interest in the issue of housing, particularly as it relates to her home state of Western Australia. I thank her for her ongoing support for the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is now set to pass through parliament this week.

A government senator: Hear, hear!

Yes—hear, hear! This fund will create an ongoing pipeline to help build social and affordable homes right across the country not just for this term of government but into perpetuity, and it's supported by the broad and ambitious Albanese government housing reform agenda. We've heard from the experts how these measures will help, but the most important feedback has been from people whose lives have been changed by safe and secure housing—people like Sean and Lisa, who met with the minister for housing recently. Sean had been needing surgery, but doctors couldn't operate while he had nowhere secure to be discharged too. Lisa told us that because they finally had a place to call home—in social housing, like the homes this fund will deliver—Sean could finally access the medical care he needed.

Access to housing changes lives, and the Housing Australia Future Fund will change the lives of countless Australians. That is what our work in this place is all about, and it is what the Albanese government is working for each and every day.

Senator Pratt, a first supplementary?

nator PRATT (—) (): I know this will be welcome news to all of those in WA who have been waiting for the affordable housing the Housing Australia Future Fund will provide. Can the minister outline some details on how the fund will support Australians who are facing specific challenges in securing a safe and affordable home and those who are currently homeless?

I thank Senator Pratt for her first supplementary question. The Housing Australia Future Fund will provide important supports for Australians who face significant challenges to find safe and affordable accommodation. The passage of this legislation allows us to deliver on our commitments—4,000 homes and $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children leaving domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness; $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of homes for remote Indigenous communities; and $30 million to build housing and to fund specialist services for veterans. This is a significant day for Australians who need and deserve our support to have a safe and affordable place to call home. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will fundamentally change housing in Australia.

Senator Pratt, a second supplementary?

The fund is a great demonstration of the collaborative approach the Albanese government is adopting, as the government has been working in partnership with the states and territories, local government and the not-for-profit sector to improve housing for Australians. Can the minister please provide an update to the Senate on how the news of the passage of the government's Housing Australia Future Fund has been received by our valued partners?

Once again, I thank Senator Pratt for her question, and yes, I can give an answer to that question. I also thank the senator for her respect for the stakeholders who've been so supportive of the Housing Australia Future Fund. Over the last few days we've heard from them about the difference this legislation will make. As Master Builders said:

The Housing Australia Future Fund legislation is a vital piece in the housing puzzle by encouraging investment in the social and community housing sector.

And Kate Colvin from Homelessness Australia said:

The homes delivered through the HAFF will each make an enormous difference to people who would otherwise be homeless.

I want to thank the housing and homelessness sector as well as the building and construction sector and embrace their partnership in the delivery of homes to come from the Housing Australia Future Fund.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. From 28 October 2023 the ACT will decriminalise the possession of small amounts of the most commonly used illicit drugs. This comes after the ACT health minister reportedly boasted to a roomful of activists at Labor's national conference about how Canberra's Labor-Greens government was able to quietly but quickly decriminalise illicit drugs. Does the federal government support their ACT Labor government colleagues' plan to decriminalise hard drugs, including methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine?

Thanks, Senator Paterson. Clearly the question you're asking is a question for the ACT, over which the federal government has no responsibility. I don't know why we're using the federal parliament to ask questions about a territory government and its decisions. Senator Paterson, I know it's been a while since you've been able to ask a question in your portfolio, but I would have thought there were other issues that are clearly within the province of the federal government in home affairs that would be something that we clearly have responsibility for. So, it's a little odd that the only question we're receiving in the home affairs area is on something that is the decision of the territory government.

Senator Paterson?

On direct relevance: two agencies in the Home Affairs portfolio—the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police—have publicly commented about their concerns about this development.

Minister Watt, please continue.

As I said, this is a decision that's been made by the ACT government. I know Senator Canavan wanted to have a Senate inquiry and a private senator's bill about another decision that was made by the territory government. What we're focusing on are matters that are decisions of the federal government, including, in the Home Affairs portfolio, strengthening our national security. That's what we're focused on, rather than the decisions that territory governments make.

Of course the AFP are entitled to their view. But, as I said, our focus, when it comes to the Home Affairs portfolio, is ensuring that our national security is strong, ensuring that we fix up the complete mess around cybersecurity that was left by the former government. They're the issues that we're really focused on in the Home Affairs portfolio. I know Minister O'Neil has also been working closely with Minister Giles, the immigration minister, about the migration review—another issue that was a complete mess when the former government lost office. We've been tackling the backlog of visa applications, which was up to a million when we took office. They're the issues that we've been very focused on in the Home Affairs portfolio.

Senator Patterson, a first supplementary?

Perhaps the minister is getting the answer now from his colleague. What is the government's plan to ensure that this loophole isn't exploited by organised crime groups operating across Australia after the Australian Federal Police warned that changes will lure recreational drug users into Canberra and spark an increase in drug related deaths? What impact will these laws have on other jurisdictions—for example, New South Wales?

Thank you, Senator Paterson. Of course, it is important to recognise that the changes that the ACT have made have been in relation to small quantities of these substances for personal consumption.

Senator Cash, are you calling someone a disgrace? You're calling someone a disgrace?

Minister Watt, resume your seat. Senator Cash, I request that you withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Cash. I would ask that you listen in silence. Minister Watt, please continue.

But the point remains, Senator Paterson, that the issues you're asking questions about relate to decisions that were made by the ACT government. They would be entirely appropriate questions to put to the ACT government. I know the Liberal Party does have a handful of members in the ACT assembly, and they would be questions best put to the ACT government.

We of course take advice from our agencies about these matters, but we've got enough to do cleaning up the backlog of visa applications, cleaning up the mess of a migration system and cleaning up the mess of a cybersecurity system that were all left to us by your government in the Home Affairs portfolio. That's our key focus.

Senator Paterson, a second supplementary?

It's interesting that the minister doesn't think the illegal importation of hard drugs internationally is a matter for the federal government. A spokesman for the Minister for Home Affairs said in response to this issue, 'State and territory laws are a matter for those states and territories.' Is the government abrogating its responsibility for combating illicit drugs impacting our communities?

No, that is just absurd. Of course we are not abrogating our responsibilities. Our responsibility, as the federal government, does relate to the importation of these drugs from overseas, and we are resourcing the Australia Border Force and other agencies to do that. That is of course not what the focus of the ACT legislation is about. To argue that laws made by a territory government relating to the personal consumption of drugs are the same as organised crime importing large substances of drugs from overseas—to argue that they're the same thing—is complete nonsense. So, as I said, we'll keep focusing on fixing the various messes you left behind for us in the Home Affairs portfolio, and we'll leave it to the ACT government to do their bit.

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

by leave—Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend Senator Payne's valedictory this afternoon as I'll be travelling to the Pacific Island Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting. When I said this to Senator Payne, she said, 'I know how that feels.' But I did want to make some brief contributions before I left, to place on the record my respect for her contribution to this place over the past 26 years.

Senator Marise Payne is the longest-serving woman senator in Australian history. That's an extraordinary achievement, and it speaks to Senator Payne's determination and to her fortitude. I think all of us here know how hard it is to earn and retain preselection.

Honourable senators interjecting—

That was said with some understatement, right? We all know that. We also know what it is to live under intense scrutiny, away from our loved ones, and the personal toll it can take. It speaks to Marise's courage and resilience that for so many years, particularly in the Howard government, she was prepared to stand her ground on issues she cared deeply about, regardless of whether that benefited, or did not, her personal career advancement.

Senator Payne, you will be rightly remembered for your commitment both to the Liberal Party and to liberalism, particularly at a time when many might have seen those positions as being in conflict. And in doing so, you demonstrated your commitment to your principles. I said in my public statement after Senator Payne indicated her resignation that I respected her love of country and her belief in our institutions, particularly the Senate. Along the way, Senator Payne has held senior cabinet roles: Human Services, Women and Defence—indeed, she was Australia's first woman defence minister—again, another historic achievement. And then of course she held foreign affairs.

There is special responsibility in this portfolio to put the country above any other interests. I think that those of us who have had the high and rare privilege of serving as Australia's foreign minister are acutely aware of that. The political environment clamours for binaries of black and white, but foreign affairs is a portfolio that requires an ability to chart a course through complexity and ambiguity. I would say that Senator Payne sought to do this—perhaps even when others took a different tack. This is to her great credit and to our country's benefit.

Throughout her parliamentary career Marise Payne has sought to be a leader for women and girls, and to encourage as many women and girls as possible to get involved in politics.

I am advised that Senator Payne's retirement makes me the longest-serving female senator. I do not thank her for making me feel old, but I do thank her for her contribution. On behalf of the government, I congratulate Senator Marise Payne on her 26 years of dedicated service to the people of New South Wales and to this Senate. I wish you all the very best for your life beyond this place.

by leave—Unfortunately for my colleagues, I will have much more to say this afternoon, but I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Wong, for her thoughtful and generous remarks today. I appreciate them very much. This is overwhelming a place of adversity, but when it is not, it is at its strongest. In coming into the chamber today you, like me before you, are making yet another trip in support of Australia's interests and those of our partners. I really do appreciate you making that statement, Senator Wong. Thank you very much.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today by Senator Cash, Senator McGrath and Senator Cadell relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, special purpose flights, and the aviation industry.

Before I commence my remarks, I note that it was a privilege to hear the exchange that just occurred at the end of question time between Senator Wong, the Leader of the Government, and my dear, dear friend Senator Payne.

I'll first make some comments in relation to the answer from Senator Wong to the question from my good friend senator Cash about comments attributed to or reported on by Professor Marcia Langton, who used the terms 'base racism or sheer stupidity' in relation to the 'no' campaign. Those are the two phrases which Professor Langton, who is a senior proponent of the 'yes' case, used in the last few days. The use of those terms is extremely unfortunate. And from my perspective, when those in any argument speaking generally resort to the use of such terms, it is not an indication of a strong argument. It is not an indication of an argument which is winning the day. It is an indication of anger. It is an indication that your argument, in terms of what you are proposing, is not cutting through and is, in fact, failing. You attack those who are putting a contrary view instead of actually taking on the arguments that are being put by the other side. It shows you are losing the debate, and it is extremely unfortunate that those terms were used.

I note that Senator Wong in her answer referred to 'fear', as if the 'no' campaign is relying on fear. Can I say, as someone who is deputy chair of the working group in this parliament who drafted the 'no' case, which went out in the booklet issued by the Australian Electoral Commission to millions of Australians, we came together in good faith on this side of the chamber, feeling a very heavy obligation to make sure that all Australians had the benefit of all the arguments so that they could make up their own minds. That was certainly my goal and that of those on the side of the chamber. We pointed out the fact that the bill that was passed through this place in relation to this Constitutional referendum had 303 words. That's it—303 words. On the basis of a bill with 303 words, the government is proposing to introduce a new chapter into our Constitution, creating a new Constitution. There is a chapter dealing with the House of Representatives, one dealing with the Senate and a chapter dealing with our court system. From those on the other side in relation to the biggest referendum this country has ever faced—the first time a new chapter being introduced into our Constitution—all the detail that was provided was 303 words. That is it.

So I say to those on the yes side: do not abuse your opponents when they simply point out the fact that you are asking the Australian people to make an assessment on the biggest change in this country's history in this referendum on the basis of a bill with 303 words. That is a fact—303 words. That is all the detail the government is giving the Australian people. I think the Australian people deserve better than that and that is one of the reasons why the support for the referendum is crashing. There needs to be a time for personal reflection on the part of those who are putting the yes case as to why the support for the yes case is collapsing. The lack of detail, the fact all the government could provide was 303 words in making the biggest change in our country's history to our Constitution is a fact as to why the Australian people are falling on the no side of this argument.

It is amazing, isn't it, that those on that side come in and ask questions about a learned woman's comments that they have taken offence to. They are the same people who had made their decision very early on that they were going to oppose the Voice. Let's be very clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing recognition in the Australian Constitution of our first people. Secondly, they are opposing giving First Nations people a Voice to Parliament. This is not something that was concocted here in Canberra; this was actually something that First Nations people have argued for, asked for, for so long.

If we look at the reason why it was this government that introduced the bill so that we can have a referendum so that finally our First Nations people can have recognition in the Australian Constitution and to give them a voice, was because of the very obvious things that we have been doing as governments. Let's face it, the majority of governments in this country at a federal level that have had the responsibility for our First Nations health, welfare and education have been Liberal governments, over a very long period of time. What they have been doing has not been working.

If we continue to do the same thing, we're going to get the same results. First Nations people have a much shorter life expectancy, poorer health outcomes, less opportunity for education. Fewer First Nations people go on to a tertiary education. I'm not saying tertiary education is the be-all and end-all but they do not have the opportunity. If we want to talk about the word 'racism', I have been absolutely astonished at the number of racist comments, the attacks on social media when people are trying to have a conversation about the referendum and about our democracy. I, for one, can respect someone else's opinion. If people want to vote to no, that is fine. You have every right; that is why we defend our great democracy. But what I do not support is an argument mounted on racism from the people on that side who are supporting the 'no' campaign and people from outside this place, the parliament, who are using racism to stop this referendum being successful. It is such a shame that we can't have a proper debate. I thought, 'Well, do we leave the comments up on social media—the negativity and the racism?' I thought, 'No, because there are a lot of people that are going to be reading those comments and they will get offended by them.'

So I'm all for those who do not want to support it. That's fine. But let's be very clear for those people on that side. How could the 'no' campaign be anything else but run by Mr Dutton, whose first act of defiance to the First Nations people was when he walked out of the apology in the federal parliament? He walked out when the Prime Minister was apologising for the past. He walked out, and he is now the Leader of the Liberal Party. So why would we be surprised that he's taken a very strong view to oppose the Voice? Why do you think he's doing that? Because it's the 'no-alition', because it's much easier to say no. But then he came up with a great plan: 'What we'll do is vote against this referendum but, gee, we're going to have our own referendum and spend even more money.' Are we supposed to trust that at that time he would have another referendum and it would be successful?

I really am astonished that people would come in here and try and blame everything about racism on this side of the chamber and anyone who is actually supporting the 'yes' campaign. I believe that we should all be able to make our own decisions based on our own values.

If the referendum on 14 October is defeated, I for one will not be celebrating. While I'll be relieved that we have not amended our Constitution to include a new chapter that divides Australians on the basis of race, I will be melancholy because I will regret that Australia, particularly Indigenous Australia, has been put through this divisive campaign. We've said for a long time that the reasons to vote 'no' to the Voice are that it's permanent, that it's unknown, that it's risky and that it's divisive. I'd go a step further and say that it's also unnecessary.

What the proponents of the Voice would like to see—having an advisory body that will advise the government and this place, including me as a backbencher sitting over here on this side of the chamber—is a sound idea—that you would listen to people that you're going to design programs for. That's actually a really sound idea. But that can be done right now. We don't have to amend the Constitution to do that. We have the power right now. It may not even require legislation, but, if legislation were required, I for one would be in support of it. I would like to see programs designed with better input from the people that those programs are to support. That is a sound idea. This referendum is unnecessary. Amending the Constitution to divide Australians on the basis of race is unnecessary. It doesn't need to happen.

We have warned this government of this. I've been involved in Indigenous affairs and around this area for 12 to 15 years. We've warned this government that this step is unnecessary, that it will divide Australians and that we will see the very worst parts of our public discourse when it comes to attacks, possibly from both sides. It's unnecessary. And it is the Prime Minister that has decided to persist with this. It is the Prime Minister who had decided to continue this when he knows that this is likely to be defeated. Certainly the polls are showing that this referendum is likely to be defeated. So why would you put Australians through that? Why would you put Indigenous Australians through that process when we know that that's going to happen?

In relation to Professor Marcia Langton, I can't believe she has said what she said, and I say that with experience with Professor Langton because I've actually worked with Professor Langton on a number of projects over quite a number of years, in particular the cashless debit card. Professor Langton was very helpful in the early days of pushing for the cashless debit card. She came with me here to parliament. She met with members of the crossbench—this was before I got here—and met with members of the government and opposition and called for the introduction of the cashless debit card. In 2008-09, I sought Professor Langton's assistance to help in calling for restrictions on alcohol in the towns of Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley. She was very useful. I remember joining her in a studio at the ABC where she was on 7.30 and was very active in doing that. It disappoints me because I know Professor Langton and I know that she otherwise cares for this country in general, for all Australians but of course particularly for Indigenous Australians.

For these remarks to be made in the way that she has made them is very disappointing. It says to me that the proponents of the 'yes' campaign, if they're having to resort to this type of language, are obviously very worried about the outcome. I would say we should be coming together and starting to focus on how we can actually address the real issues that are occurring on the ground, and that involves some serious action and some serious responsibility and accountability.

It's rich coming from those opposite speaking of transparency and accountability and demanding facts to come in here and ask for the very same thing that Indigenous people have been asking for through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This isn't something that was established that somehow fell from the sky when our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, was elected. This Uluru Statement from the Heart, if those who are watching have not read it, is fewer than 400 words. They are simple words: 'A generous invitation for you to walk'—

You don't even know that.

I will take that interjection. I do know it. For those who sitting opposite saying, 'If you don't know, vote "no",' do you know what you are doing? You're insulting the intelligence of the Australian people. That's a shame on you because you sit here demanding and taking this moral high ground, thinking that you are alleviating Australians of this dilemma that they find themselves in. But it's very simple. If nothing changes, we cannot see results. You've been in government for the last decade. How much change have you seen? We're still seeing suicide rates skyrocket. We're still seeing incarceration rates through the roof. You call us a first-world nation when you're treating your Indigenous people as third-class citizens. Senator Hanson, what do you have to say for that?

Through the chair, I would like to come back to the point here. When I'm talking to people on the ground, the fearmongering of those on the other side, who are not basing any of their arguments on facts, is outrageous. It's all about the hypotheticals. It's all about making sure that they politicise. They use every opportunity to politicise this campaign when they know that it's simply a generous invitation for us to close the gap, for us to listen, for us to get better results.

My late father used to always used to say that God has blessed you with two ears and one mouth so that you can listen twice as much as you speak. Clearly, those opposite are just talk. They do not walk the talk. They just sit there. They just spread misinformation and they expect that Australian people are that stupid that they will listen to their fearmongering and listen to the misinformation that they're spreading. Don't you know that people on your own side—people such as Julian Leeser, Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Jeremy Rockliff—are voting yes? Why are they voting yes? You clearly don't know.

Do you know what? I don't know that you're ready to face the facts. I don't think you can handle the facts. The facts are out there. They've been out there. People have been asking for this. An overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are asking for this. Now, you all have families and children. Put yourselves in their position. They are begging for your vote. Each and every Australian out there has this opportunity, and I have faith in the Australian people. I know that we will make the right decision when it comes to 14 October, because we want to see a united nation. We want to see our nation come together.

It's really important for us to realise that the two components of the question that will be asked of the Australian people are very simple. They are recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and making sure that there's a voice to parliament—not a voice in parliament, but a voice to parliament—that will listen to the concerns of Indigenous people and ensure that, when it comes to policymaking, there's effective policymaking by consulting with those whom it will impact the most.

I would like to rephrase what those opposite are saying when they say, 'If you don't know, vote no,' by saying: 'If you don't know, find out more.' As Australians, we are smarter than that and we deserve better than that. Don't let those opposite insult your intelligence. Find out more. Vote 'yes' if you want to see change. Vote 'yes' for a better Australia.

I rise to address this topic from the perspective of somebody who has worked for much of his professional life as an experimental test pilot, which is all about saying: there's a bid for change, there's a new proposal, but will it work and will it have unintended consequences, and what are the facts? Now, that approach doesn't mean that I'm anti the new proposal. It doesn't mean that I'm somehow biased against the new proposal. It means that I'm applying due diligence, which is a feature of the engineering world, the aviation world and the financial world. In fact, I would argue that every household does their due diligence in a range of areas.

But I want to come to these two topics that have raised. They are around race and whether asking questions is legitimate. Going first to the question of race, I have a quote:

The draft wording that has been announced goes beyond ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to participate in decision-making that affects them. It inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation.

Now, I invite people to guess who actually said that. It wasn't somebody from this side of the Senate chamber. It was Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, a well-established constitutional lawyer and human rights lawyer, somebody who works for our nation from the reference point of what is fair and equitable. That is her assessment. The last part of her assessment goes to constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and implementation.

It is worthwhile looking at the comments of people like former High Court judge Ian Callinan, who said:

… I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice …

Again, this is hardly someone you would say was stupid or racist.

Professor Greg Craven, who is a constitutional law expert—and he, indeed, has been deeply involved in creating the Voice—said on the Albanese government model:

I think it's fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets … We will have regular judicial interventions.

If eminent experts who are clearly not stupid, who are clearly not racist, are calling into question both the efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences, it is quite reasonable—in fact, proper—for Australians to say, 'If you can't tell us the details, we won't support it.'

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 taxation.

Today in the chamber I asked a question of Senator Wong, who answered the question on behalf of the Prime Minister, to do with the new Productivity Commissioner, Danielle Wood, who has made reference to an inheritance tax—in other words, a death duty. I got, 'No, it's not a plan; we're not really looking at it.' That was the answer to it. I know it's the Greens' policy to have a death duty tax, and I know Senator Jacqui Lambie has also referred to death duties. I say to Australians: you pay tax all the way along. You pay 45 per cent tax for your newly built home, stamp duty, GST, land tax, capital gains and all these taxes—and then, on death, you will possibly have to pay tax on all your assets, not just your home but your car, your clothing, your jewellery, your paintings and every asset you have. They want to come in and take more taxes from you. This is money you've worked hard for and saved to pass on to your family. It's disgusting.

The other question I asked was with regard to the value of the family home from the age pension assets test. The senator couldn't answer the question. She referred to aged care; I never even mentioned aged care. She referred to other issues but wouldn't even answer the question. I warn aged pensioners out there: be very concerned over this. They will be targeting your home to include it as an asset so you will not be able to get the age pension. Your healthcare card and everything will go. A lot of people out there are struggling. They don't have assets; all they have is their home. The government will come after your home so they won't have to pay you an aged pension. This is what the Australian people need to be very concerned about. To all the aged people out there: you've worked hard, and they're coming after your money.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to reproductive health care.

My question was: where is the government's response to the recent Senate inquiry into universal access to reproductive health care? That committee report was quite a landmark report in that it was a consensus report of all parties and it made some really strong recommendations. Those consensus recommendations set out a comprehensive plan to improve and deliver universal access to reproductive sexual and maternity health care for everyone. I asked the minister where the response is because the response was technically due three weeks ago. It's been four months since we handed down that report, and the government has delayed the response to that report and we haven't had an explanation of what the hold-up is. I asked the minister what the hold-up is and when we can expect to see it. The response was that the government is working on it. We welcome the fact you're working on it because there is a lot that needs to be worked on, but we are urging you to respond in a timely manner. Australian women just had nine years of feeling neglected by the last government. They want their concerns addressed, and women's health care has long been an under-focused area of policy.

I note last week was Women's Health Week. I was expecting an announcement from the government in the women's health space, and we got crickets instead. Meanwhile, Australians continue to face barriers, whether financial or physical, to accessing reproductive health care, including abortion, contraception, sexual health care and maternity services in Australia. They're all really timely issues, and we know those issues and barriers are more pronounced in rural and regional Australia. The quality of the health care that you receive shouldn't depend on where you live and it certainly shouldn't depend on your credit card balance. We pay taxes so that we can have universal services, and it's crucial that women and people right across the country are able to access the reproductive health care that they deserve when they need it, and locally.

I just want to draw the chamber's attention to a couple of recommendations from that inquiry. Recommendations 32 and 33 of the reproductive healthcare inquiry recommended expanded Medicare rebates for same-sex couples using IVF. I know this is an issue of particular significance to same-sex couples who wish to become parents and who need to rely on a surrogate and IVF. Having this reform, potentially, kicked down the road and put into the 10-year National Action Plan for the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ people is not good enough—it really isn't—and that's going to be quite damaging and hurtful to same-sex and gender-diverse families that have already waited far too long to have their healthcare needs considered and catered for. Medicare rebates for IVF need to be offered to everyone. The inquiry was about universal access, and this has to be a priority reform.

The committee also recommended that public hospitals provide surgical abortions or, at the very least, a referral to an affordable local service. That reform would go such a long way to improving access so that people who are seeking a termination don't have to travel hundreds of kilometres or to pay hundreds of dollars to access basic health care. Abortion is basic health care, and that means it should be available where you live, in your vicinity and for no out-of-pocket costs.

The committee also recommended improving access to and affordability of different types of contraceptives, including long-acting reversible contraceptives. These really are time effective, financially efficient and, obviously, a very medically safe way of giving people more control over their reproductive choices.

Another welcome recommendation from the report is support for midwives in birthing. Last week, I met with multiple maternity consumer groups, midwives and midwife groups which want the government to deliver on the Medicare Benefits Scheme Taskforce Review items that would properly recognise the value of midwifery. Those recommendations have been gathering dust for many, many years now, and midwives are pulling their hair out. They're desperate to see some action on that, and we back them on that call. I'm grateful that the minister has informed me that the government is looking at these matters, but there's still quite a long way to go.

I just want to finish by noting that I also asked the minister about how we're going to manage women who are suffering from chronic pain getting access in an affordable way to the multidisciplinary pain management treatment that they need. We're backing Pain Australia's call for 10 subsidised allied healthcare visits for women suffering from chronic pain. I look forward to the government seriously considering funding for that.

Question agreed to.

I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I shall move that the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 and the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

Senator Hughes for the period from Monday, 11 September to Thursday, 14 September inclusive, for personal reasons; and Senator McDonald for Tuesday, 12 September to Thursday, 14 September for parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Dodson from 11 to 14 September 2023, for personal reasons;

(b) Senator Green from 11 to 14 September 2023, on account of parliamentary business;

(c) Senator McCarthy from 11 to 12 September 2023, for personal reasons;

(d) Senator Stuart for 12 September 2023, for personal reasons; and

(e) Senator Wong for 14 September 2023, on account of ministerial business.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. We will now proceed to formal business.

I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1.

Leave granted.

I amend the motion by omitting 'for a period of up to 90 minutes'. The full text of the revised motion has been circulated in the chamber. I move the motion as amended:

That on Wednesday, 13 September 2023, consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to allow senators to make valedictory statements relating to Senator Payne.

President, I seek clarification about whether that amendment—removing the 90 minutes—impacts on the no division rule after 6.30.

I heard a chorus of voices say no, it doesn't.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) on 5 September 2023, order for production of documents no. 300 was agreed by the Senate requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5.30 pm on Monday, 11 September 2023, to table copies of all advice, briefings or submissions provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister related to the application by Qatar Airways for additional international flight services to major Australian airports, and

(ii) as at adjournment on Monday, 11 September 2023 the order had not been complied with;

(b) the Minister representing the Prime Minister attend the chamber at the conclusion of formal business on Wednesday, 13 September 2023 to provide an explanation, of no more than five minutes, of the failure of the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with order for production of documents no. 300 as agreed on 5 September 2023;

(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and

(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We will be opposing the motion, but I advise the chamber that the response to the order for the production of documents in the question has been sent to the table office and will be tabled at the time for ministerial statements in accordance with usual practice. In light of Senator McKenzie's motion today, as a courtesy, Senator Wong has also provided a copy of the response to the order from the assistant minister to the Prime Minister to all party leaders and Independent senators in advance of ministerial statements and of this motion being dealt with. As the documents are being tabled, it is the government's view that this motion should not be supported.

The question is that general business notice of motion number 331 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 14 September 2023, all invoices issued to passengers on the Prime Minister's special purpose aircraft flight on 31 August 2022.

by leave—I move:

That the motion be amended as follows:

After "2022" insert ", to the extent such information can be provided consistent with advice from security agencies."

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 13 September, from Senator Babet:

Pursuant to standing order 75, the United Australia Party propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

In the interests of energy costs and the environment, Australia must end its prohibition on nuclear energy generation, and join countries like Canada and the United States who have been using this technology safely and successfully for decades.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

r BABET (—) (): I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

In the interests of energy costs and the environment, Australia must end its prohibition on nuclear energy generation, and join countries like Canada and the United States who have been using this technology safely and successfully for decades.

Australia, we are in an energy crisis. I don't think any of us would deny that. Power bills are becoming unaffordable and our forced transition out of cheap and reliable coal and gas has left our nation with a massive exposure to blackouts and ever-increasing prices. Our energy grid: what is it? It is a house of cards, and it is predominantly, as far as I can tell, made in China. China control most of the world's supply of solar panels and batteries and they also own the majority of cobalt mines, and cobalt is a critical mineral used in so-called renewable energy products.

The recent visit to Australia by the Ontario Minister for Energy, Mr Todd Smith, should be a wake-up call to Australia to end the ban on nuclear energy. Mr Smith said that nuclear power is Canada's only pathway to net zero. Just 20 years ago, the province of Ontario was dependent on coal to generate electricity, as is Australia, but in 2003 it committed to going nuclear. It took only 11 years for it to close its last coal-fired power station, in 2014. In the last year, Ontario has sourced more than 50 per cent of its power from conventional, large-scale nuclear plants, and its power price per kilowatt hour is now about half what it is in Australia.

At the turn of the 21st century, Australia had some of the cheapest and most reliable energy in the world. That started to change when the Howard government, in around 2001, imposed a five per cent renewable energy target. In 2006 the Howard government commissioned an investigation into building nuclear power plants in Australia, which the Labor Party obviously opposed.

When Labor was elected in 2007 it lifted the renewable energy target to 20 per cent, and state governments also introduced renewable energy targets and subsidies. Just like clockwork, power prices have risen consistently ever since. Minister Chris Bowen says it would take too long and cost too much for Australia to go nuclear. But let's talk about the cost of not going nuclear. A recent report by Net Zero Australia puts the cost of meeting Australia's aspiration of net zero by 2050 at $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade, with the need for $7 trillion to $9 trillion of capital by 2060. That's around $9,000 billion, or nine times our federal debt. Wokeness is a very expensive business, it seems.

According to Minister Bowen, just meeting our 43 per cent reduction target by 2030 would require us to install 22,000 solar panels every day for eight years, along with 40 wind turbines every single month, backed by at least 10,000 kilometres of additional transmission lines. All this infrastructure can't be that good for the environment. How many whales need to be beached? How many wedge-tailed eagles need to be killed? How many trees need to be cut down? How much prime agricultural land needs to be covered in solar panels that last maybe 20 years before they end up being thrown into landfill? It seems to me that some in this place aren't as focused on genuine environmentalism as they claim to be.

Nuclear power can directly replace coal. The jobs pay well, and many of the skills are transferable. No-one who currently works in the coal industry wants to spend their days unboxing and fitting Chinese made solar panels on to roofs. Nuclear power provides a dignified transition. Best of all, nuclear can simply plug into our existing grid and provide the stable baseload energy needed to revitalise our manufacturing sector. The plants can be built in the exact same footprint where coal power stations currently sit today.

I asked our government one question: should we spend our money here at home or should we send it overseas to China? The renewable energy transition has turned Australia into nothing short of a Chinese colony. Nuclear power bridges the gap between both sides of politics. It is economically and environmentally viable. We need to end this madness. It's time to legalise—embrace—nuclear power for Australia.

As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I know that nuclear is an answer to humanity's energy needs. There are others, including hydro, which is being underutilised, and clean coal. Modern coal can be used in a way that produces zero carbon dioxide. A trial site in Tasmania is currently waiting to install equipment that will convert coal to hydrogen and then hydrogen to electricity—baseload cheap, reliable electricity. This system is only 10 per cent dearer than doing the obvious thing: burning the coal itself for even cheaper electricity. And remember, no-one has provided logical scientific points with empirical scientific data saying that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—no-one. Increasingly, leading scientists are plucking up the courage to call out the United Nations and the World Economic Forum for their climate scam.

The ruling zeitgeist among politicians, autocrats, predatory businesses and the mouthpiece media hates the concept of plentiful and cheap power. That's the core issue. UN net zero is not about cheap power and it's not about saving the environment from a harmless trace gas essential to all life on earth. UN net zero is about restricting electricity output to provide an artificial energy deficit that can be used to control, that can be used to keep those behind this scam in power—scarcity that will rob Australia of a prosperous future that generations of Australians have worked to secure for themselves and for generations to come.

The Greens, Labor, the teals and the globalists among the Liberal and National parties oppose nuclear, and when they do their motivation should be obvious. Critics of nuclear power are serving the interests of the predatory billionaires who need an energy shortage to control people to prevent protests against what is currently the largest wealth transfer in history—a transfer from everyday Australians to the world's wealthiest individuals. As for the Greens and the teals, it makes no sense to pretend to the environmentalists and then stand back as swathes of Australia—national parks, bushland and farmland—are vandalised for wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines, in a manner that stops soaring birds from migrating and nesting, coming around the world to do so.

It's telling that the teals and Greens opposed Senator Cadell's proposed inquiry into this environmental vandalism. That reveals their real agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with the natural environment. It's about control and wealth transfer. So these days we listen to the Greens, the teals, Labor and the dominant globalist wing of the Liberals and Nationals putting nuclear to the sword. This is not based on any valid objection to nuclear power, which is used around the world, is safe and produces almost no waste. No, these establishment parties are putting nuclear to the sword for the same reason that modern coal is being put to the sword. There will be no low-cost electricity again in this country under a government that any of these establishment parties leads. There will be control. There will be wealth transfer from the people to elitist parasites. One Nation will continue to expose them and to support nuclear.

I stand in this chamber and look around, and there's a crew of us who have had this conversation so many times. We go around and round in circles and we come to absolutely no agreement. Senator Babet, in fact, had an almost identical MPI in March of this year where I think he probably gave exactly the same speech and Senator Roberts gave exactly the same speech. I'm sure that I, Senator Canavan and Senator Cadell will all do the same.

Oh, Senator O'Sullivan is going to give the same speech as well. Great. It is good that we're all on the same page.

It's not going away.

It's not going away. That is absolutely correct, Senator Canavan. We've had inquiries into this where it's not just each of us providing our opinions in this chamber; it is about bringing together experts. Some experts differ from each other. They have different perspectives. They're looking at things from different angles.

In the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry earlier this year, which I don't believe Senator Babet turned up for, what we came to was not a unanimous decision but a majority decision that said no. Point 1 that was put forward on the basis of the evidence put to the committee was that nuclear energy is expensive. Over a period of many, many years, it becomes cheaper, but the initial investment to start up a nuclear energy industry in Australia from scratch is extraordinarily expensive, and we know that the evidence from other areas that are going towards nuclear is exactly the same. There's significant expenditure over and above what was planned. This is the evidence that was provided to the committee.

The second point was that next-generation nuclear technology is currently unproven in the sense that there are no SMRs, small modular reactors, in commercial operation. There are plenty planned and there are various ideas out there, but there isn't actually one commercially viable one. That is the evidence the committee was given by the experts.

Point 3 is that if it were commercially viable at this point in time to bring nuclear energy into Australia, which it currently isn't, then the amount of time it would take us to develop an industry is so long as to not be worth it, given that we are already on a pathway to significant renewable energy which is very cheap. So there is unnecessary cost in moving to nuclear. If we wanted to go to nuclear, we should have done it decades ago. That brings me to another point: those opposite weren't able to get the coalition government to commit to nuclear in the nine years that they were in power, so your own people don't support it.

Point 4 is that it's fairly inflexible. The energy output of nuclear power lacks the flexibility to adjust in a market. Point 5 is the safety and environmental concerns linked to the production of nuclear energy. There are safety concerns. There are issues with how the health and safety piece is dealt with in reality and in terms of people's approach and perception of it, because we all know there is no social licence in this country for nuclear power and nuclear in general. We've seen that time and time again.

The seventh point is water scarcity. Nuclear power plants require significant volumes of water, and we are a drought-prone country, so that's a huge disincentive for us. There are also national security risks—and point 8 was the social licence. These things are such that there is no sense into moving towards nuclear—none whatsoever.

Those who come in here to push nuclear power need to have a solution for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. It must be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no permanent solution anywhere on the planet for the disposal of this waste. It's closest in Finland, but it's not yet complete after decades of planning, really long delays and huge cost. After seven decades of commercial nuclear power operations, not one nation has a final, permanent disposal site.

In 2016 the world's biggest citizens jury, in my state of South Australia, got together 350 citizens, who looked carefully at disposing of high-level waste in our state, and they said no. It cost too much, it posed a danger to future generations and South Australia's First Nations people said no. Any disposal, any plan for nuclear power and its disposal of waste, needs to have the full, prior and informed consent of First Nations people.

We have some recent experience with nuclear waste in South Australia to draw on at Kimba. Both the coalition and labour over a number of years have just spent $108 million trying to convince the citizens of Kimba to take low-level and intermediate-level waste—not even high-level waste. They divided the community, they wasted $100 million, they did not get a solution and the citizens said no. First Nations people that place, to a person, said no. People in Kimba are divided. You walk down the main street of Kimba and you will find the cost that that community paid for a poorly informed, badly designed project.

The nuclear spruikers who come into this place and push the agenda of companies that want to make a lot of money need to have a solution on nuclear waste apart from all the other problems: too slow, too expensive. The future is not nuclear. (Time expired)

ELL (—) (): Senator Grogan did me a kindness thinking I could remember what I said four months ago; I'm having trouble with tomorrow, so let's start anew! Let's go with what we heard today. Let's go through the waste argument we just had. It's going to take big land, but let's not forget Rewiring the Nation stages 1 and 2 are 10,000 kilometres of line taking 77,000 hectares of land. That is 77,000 hectares of land gone. You could put four waste dumps into 77,000 hectares, but we don't need to do that, because all the nuclear waste generated in the world to this date would fit into a football field. That is the truth there.

Let's go to water. Every coal plant now uses water. They're built next to water. Liddell has just closed in the Hunter Valley; let's put some small modular reactors there. We've got the water and we've got the transmission lines. We don't need more transmission lines and we have enough water.

Let's go to price. We're not allowed to look at what happens in Australia, so the CSIRO GenCost has it from about 2014. If you go the IEA, the international agency that look at this and don't ban it, nuclear has the lowest LCOE of any technology. Nuclear has the lowest in the world, but we can't even look at it in Australia, because it is banned. The CSIRO doesn't look at what the actual cost could be or what it is, because we aren't allowed to. Government policy stops it. We want to have a look at it. It might not be right. It might not get funded. But these are the things we come up with.

Then we come to adjustability. This is my favourite one from those selling the green dreams: adjustability of nuclear is not great. So what happens with wind farms? 'Oh, the wind's not blowing. Let's get on our knees and pray to God for a bit more wind. Oh, no; we don't believe in that.' What happens when the sun isn't out? 'Let's get down and do an antirain dance so the sun shines brighter.' When you talk about adjustability, nuclear has got it down pat over wind and solar. Wind and solar—what are we going to do? Climate change? Is that how we're going to fix wind and solar? We're going to have it hotter? Is that part of the plan here? So all the arguments, when you look at them, fall down.

And all we want to do is look down, because the people in the chamber and the people at home—it's a simple rule—want to turn their lights and their air conditioner on when they get home and know that it works and that it's there. They're happy to have no emissions. We'll go down this zero-emission pathway. If it's going to be no emission, what do we want? These aren't people going out to kill polar bears; they just want to have their fridge on and their air conditioning happening. Cut we can't look at the cheapest, most efficient, easiest way to do it because there's a ban.

There are people in Lucas Heights living on Sierra Road, 750 metres from Australia's nuclear reactor, selling their homes for $1.4 million. That's how scary this is. Sierra Road real estate—look it up! It's a great little place. Don't go to Maccas. But this is what we're talking about—the fear. They don't want to know because it'll work, people will be happy and people will have energy. (Time expired)

This debate, coming from the coalition, is like living in some sort of fact-free universe. I suppose they are in a post-fact world when it comes to nuclear. They sit down and they watch the Trump feed on whatever fringe app that they've got to share their nuclear dreams. The fact is that Australia is less safe with nuclear power in the country. Australia has so far dodged a radioactive bullet by not going down that path, but now Senator Babet and his mates in the coalition want us to jump in front of that bullet.

What is frightening, though, is that what you would think are the fringe voices from the coalition in this chamber are not alone. The coalition generally has been taken over by the nuclear industry, despite the fact that there's not a single private corporation in the country that'll fund this stuff. You keep telling us you love commercial and you love the market, but the fact that the market is looking at the nuclear power industry like a pool of toxic sludge doesn't seem to influence you at all.

But, when we look at what the Albanese government is doing on nuclear, I think we should also be afraid. It's not just the fringe Babets of the world; it's also the Albanese government that's doing this. The Albanese government is looking to spend $368 billion—last time I checked, although it probably went up by a couple of hundred billion dollars last night!—on nuclear submarines. We know that those submarines are unlikely to appear, but behind all of that is a push to expand the nuclear industry in Australia and, worse still, to do it in a sphere which does not meet basic international standards.

The Albanese government wants the new nuclear defence regulator to be literally run by Defence. That does not meet the international minimum standards from the International Atomic Energy Agency. You need to have functional and legislative separation between the regulator and operator. But, under the Albanese government dream, which has been ticked off by the coalition, they're quite comfortable with having the new defence regulator report to the same minister, the Minister for Defence, as is operating them, and, worse still, have a conflict ridden big four consultant write the new rule book.

Why is it important for nuclear submarines? Because every other country has got it wrong. Right now, the UK, which has been running nuclear submarines since the 1960s, has 21 of their former Royal Navy nuclear submarines awaiting disposal, mostly in Scotland. Seven are in Rosyth and 14 are in Devonport awaiting disposal. What was their initial plan for nuclear waste? To fill the submarines with concrete and sink them to the bottom of the ocean. That's what should happen with this motion. (Time expired)

I just want to start by commending Senator Babet for his motion. Of course, I acknowledge that, as a senator for Victoria, he's up against it when it comes to energy policy, so I commend you, Senator Babet, for bringing this forward. We know that Premier Andrews has decided to ban gas. One thing is for certain: he wouldn't want to see nuclear power in that state. So I commend you, Senator Babet, for bringing forward a very sensible proposition that we're dealing with right here. It's very sensible. Despite what we hear from those on the other side and, in particular, from the Greens' corner of the chamber, this is a very sensible proposition.

Last year, the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, announced that the coalition would undertake a formal internal process to examine the viability of the use of nuclear energy in Australia. It is a critical discussion that we must have as a country if we're going to deal with the energy mix that's required to get to whatever targets we want to get to. Nuclear energy has to be part of that mix, because it provides the reliability that is necessary to balance the energy market. When nuclear energy is mentioned, Labor and the Greens team up and have this little freak-out. They immediately cite the nuclear disasters of old and talk about the fear and the danger of having nuclear energy here in Australia. We must remind ourselves that nuclear energy technology has come a long way.

Senator Grogan said that I was going to deliver the same speech that I delivered last time we had a debate on this, and there's some truth to what she said. But I tell you what: the technology is advancing so quickly in this space that what I might have said three or four months ago could be complemented by the developments of technology in this space. We know that this is true, because the rest of the world is embracing nuclear energy. In fact, in the United States, through the Inflation Reduction Act, they've put nuclear on par with renewables when it comes to receiving support in subsidies and tax concessions. So the United States, of all places, have adopted this. Canada has recently announced the lifetime extension of one of its largest nuclear power plants. Eighteen months ago, they decided they were going to build the very first small modular reactor, even though we heard on this side that that's pie-in-the-sky, theoretical stuff. Canada, of all places, with their government, have decided to further embrace nuclear and some of the newer technologies that are emerging. So it is a sensible debate that needs to be had, and we should embrace it. (Time expired)

As the Australian Greens spokesperson for resources, I want to focus on the mining of uranium, because, of course, if we want nuclear energy, we need uranium. There are currently two operating uranium mines in Australia, both in South Australia. There are talks of opening up new mines in my home state of Western Australia and in the Northern Territory, particularly at the Ranger mine, the longest-running uranium mine, which has recently ceased operations after a controversial history of leaks, spills and licence breaches over that period. There have been discussions, particularly with Energy Resources of Australia, about extending the lease at Jabiluka, which sits near the Ranger mine, with both sites being within the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. The Mirarr traditional owners have opposed the mining at Ranger, and, if it does proceed, it's without their consent. They're now focused on ensuring that that site is rehabilitated to be included again in the World Heritage listed national park. They are also strongly opposed to any mining taking place at Jabiluka again. The Mirarr have carried out cultural responsibility for the impacts of anything originating from their country. In the case of the Fukushima disaster, after it was confirmed that Australian uranium was present in their reactors, senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula said, when she learnt the poison from her country had resulted in so much damage in Japan:

This makes us feel very sad.

Any suggestion that Australia should consider engaging in nuclear power is a direct insult, in fact, to the Mirarr people and many other First Nations communities that are actively resisting uranium mining and radioactive waste proposals in their country.

First of all, I want to congratulate Senator Babet for bringing this excellent motion forward. Secondly, I will raise something that none of my esteemed colleagues on the other side have spoken about today, and that's people's power bills. People are really struggling out there at the moment. They're struggling to pay their mortgages and for petrol, and they're struggling every quarter when a new power bill turns up, almost invariably higher than the power bill they received the quarter before. The No. 1 thing Australian people want us to focus on is supporting things that can bring down living costs, including power prices, for them. There is no doubt in my mind that building new always-on baseload power stations is the key way to bring power prices down. We've already tried a failed approach. What we've been doing is not working, clearly, and no one on the other side has suggested anything different from what we are currently doing. What we have been doing in the past 15 years is massively increasing our production of renewable energy—it has gone from five per cent of our electricity production to more than 25 per cent—nearly 30 per cent. It has more than quintupled. We have more than quintupled the amount of renewable energy we have produced in this nation, and over that time power prices have more than doubled for Australian families. No matter how many times you say as a mantra that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power, you cannot deny the raw basic facts that the more we seem to install of this cheapest form of power, the higher our power prices go. Why is that? It's because renewable energy is on only every now and again. It's not on all the time, and in the times it is not on, you have to have very expensive backup, whether it is gas or restricting power output at factories. All these ridiculous things—when the sun's not shining, when the wind's not blowing—are costing us a fortune.

We should listen to other countries that have made these mistakes and learn from their examples. As Senator Cadell said, the International Energy Agency has clearly spoken on this. They've looked at different technologies from all over the world, and said in a report only a couple of years ago that 'electricity from the long-term operation of nuclear power plants constitutes the least cost option for low-carbon generation'. Anyone who is against nuclear power in this country is for higher power bills for the Australian people. Those are basic facts. Anyone who wants to come in and say the CSIRO found something different—no, they don't. The CSIRO doesn't actually look at existing nuclear technologies. Have a look at the so-called GenCost report: there is not a single bit of analysis of the cost of existing nuclear technologies. They look only at these small modular technologies in 2030. They make estimates. They're all predictions and projections; they are not looking at the raw, hard facts.

I and this side of the chamber think that it's about time we start doing things differently and start thinking of ways we can help Australian families, looking at ways we can bring their power prices down. We may as well give this a go. We may as well give it a go because the rest of the world does it. They operate safely all around the world. Nuclear power plants have the lowest rate of fatalities of any form of power production around the world. We've got to manage the waste issues anyway. We are buying these nuclear subs, so we're going to have to deal with the waste issues anyway. If we don't fix this soon, I am worried that the principal purpose that these nuclear subs will have to be put to is when the inevitable renewable blackouts come, we'll have to park them in Sydney Harbour, go and get a long extension cord and plug them into the grid. That will be our only solution! Instead, we can build a nuclear power plant today and that will bring down power prices as well.

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

A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Mr Albanese promised Australians cheaper electricity, cheaper mortgages and better pay, yet Australians are facing a cost of living crisis fuelled by spiralling electricity, growing mortgage stress, a huge gulf in real wages and the cost of household essentials going up and up.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having ris en in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

This afternoon the coalition has initiated this discussion to hold Prime Minister Albanese accountable on his commitment or promise to Australians for cheap electricity prices, cheaper mortgages and better pay. There are two dates that the Labor government have erased from their collective memory. The first is 2 May 2022, when the Prime Minister, who was then the opposition leader, committed as part of his federal election campaign to providing a cheaper life for Australian families. He said that he had a real plan to keep mortgages cheaper and he had a real plan to keep cost-of-living pressures down. You don't hear anything anymore about that commitment of 2 May 2022. The second date that Labor have erased from their collective memory is the date in August 2022 when Labor committed to transparency, accountability and no more secrecy. That is the second date that Labor have erased from their collective memory. There will be more about the August commitment at another time in another debate.

Just yesterday Westpac said to the Australian community that things have never been so hard for Australian families. Westpac said that Australian families are now more worried about the state of their finances than at any other time in the last three decades. What did Bill Evans, the chief economist at Westpac, have to say? He was talking yesterday about the Westpac consumer sentiment survey and he said:

Since the survey began in 1974, the only comparable period of such sustained weakness was during the recession of the early 1990s when even weaker levels held for more than two years.

Mr Evans went on to talk about how the financial toll from high inflation, soaring interest rates and climbing rents crushed household spending in the three months to June. That sentiment expressed by Westpac, seen in their consumer sentiment survey, is exactly what we saw revealed last week in the details that were provided in the national accounts for this country. Things have got seriously bad and, unfortunately, they're going to get worse for many Australian families.

Just recently there was a glimmer of relief for Australian families when the RBA decided not to provide a 12th interest rate increase on mortgages. The cumulative effect of 11 interest rate rises—meaning the cash rate has now risen to 4.1 per cent—is hurting people and hurting Australian families. What did the governor of the RBA say when the RBA decided not to lift interest rates further on that occasion just recently? He painted a very bleak picture for the Australian economy and, therefore, for Australian families. The governor said in his statement:

… inflation is still too high and will remain so for some time yet. While goods price inflation has eased, the prices of many services are rising briskly.

' Briskly' was the governor's word. He went on to say:

Rent inflation is also elevated.

He went on to say:

The Australian economy is experiencing a period of below-trend growth and this is expected to continue for a while. High inflation is weighing on people's real incomes and household consumption growth is weak, as is dwelling investment.

If things couldn't be any worse for our country, what did he say about the prospect of rising unemployment? The governor said:

… the unemployment rate is expected to rise …

Imagine that. Australian families are having to find more in their household budgets to meet the cumulative effect of those 11 interest rate rises, and then some of them are facing the prospect of losing their jobs. This is what the commitment by the Labor opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, on 2 May 2022 to make life easier and cheaper for Australian families has delivered, and it's only going to get worse.

I don't know where those opposite have been for the last 14 or 15 months. Oh, that's right: they're in opposition. Therefore, they have no understanding of the reforms that the Labor government has introduced into this country to give a positive response to the cost-of-living crisis that we're in. They know the reasons why we've ended up here. We had 10 years of neglect from those opposite. This was the Liberal-National government who had a policy to drive down wages. That's what their policy was. At every opportunity to kick a worker, that's exactly what they did. They come in here now bleating with concern about those who are finding it tough. They're not genuine at all. Where were they when Qantas sacked thousands and thousands of workers? Where were they when they gave Qantas $2.7 billion and then allowed it to sack worker after worker after worker and outsource the other work?

Let's get on to the positive things the Albanese Labor government have done since we came into office. We have addressed energy bill relief. We have ensured that the price of energy has not skyrocketed as it had threatened to do. We've also done more for families. We have supported an increase to wages. We have increased child care. We have actually surpassed the 180,000 extra fee-free TAFE places that we promised to address the skills shortage that those opposite presided over for more than a decade, doing nothing except run TAFE colleges around this country into the ground.

This week, when there was an opportunity to support the Housing Australia Future Fund with $10 billion, what did those opposite do? What they always do. They are a 'no-alition'. That's who they are. They voted against it, because they really do not care about vulnerable people in our community. They think everyone has a privileged life, as the majority of them do. They have no idea how hard it is for a woman leaving domestic violence with her children and having no place to go. You're not going to leave that environment unless you have a safe place to land. You just won't do it. Why have we seen that the largest increase in the number of homeless people in this country is in the cohort of women aged 55 and above? Why is that happening? It hasn't just happened in the last 14 or 15 months. It clearly happened when those people on that side of the chamber were in government. But we are addressing that. We are providing social and affordable homes. We've finally seen the Greens come along and get in on the party. They have supported that legislation, and I say, 'Thank you very much.'

Those opposite did nothing to grow our manufacturing industry. We saw more industries going offshore on their watch. That's what we've seen. They didn't support cheaper child care. They didn't support fee-free TAFE. They didn't support renewable energy. They haven't supported the 60-day script, which is making medicines more affordable to ordinary everyday Australians, particularly those people who have chronic illness and have to have ongoing medication. They did nothing. When it was proposed to them when they were in government, they bent over for the Pharmacy Guild, because it was going to have an impact on pharmacies. Well, the Australian taxpayer dollar is not here to prop up businesses. What we are here to do is to make sure that Australians have access to affordable medicine. We've reduced the cost of medicine. We've now made it cheaper for people to have their scripts filled and enabled them to have fewer visits to their GP. We've opened urgent-care clinics. And I know, from the three that have already opened in Tasmania, the impact that's already having, so that people don't have to spend hours in accident and emergency.

But no: this motion put forward by Senator Smith—it just wants to eliminate. Those things haven't really happened, because when these people were in government it was Utopia. That's why the economy has tanked under them. That's why the wages of working Australians were suppressed, because that was their policy. They did nothing for social housing, and they did nothing at all for health. (Time expired)

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I find it ironic that the Liberal Party has decided to bring on this matter of public importance mentioning the skyrocketing price of electricity, when they are the ones pushing for the United Nations net zero pipedream. It's ironic that they would mention growing mortgage stress. Their government was the one that printed over $500 billion out of thin air during the COVID mismanagement. That caused Australia's inflation problem. The Reserve Bank of Australia said they needed to raise rates to fight inflation by sending people with a mortgage broke. Supposedly they were trying to fix the inflation that the government caused—the gall, to mention real wages, which are forced down by the spiralling inflation problem, and suppressed by our unsustainable immigration intake.

Only today the Liberal Party was completely absent from a vote on my amendment to the Housing Australia Future Fund bill to acknowledge that our immigration problem is a problem for housing. It's the core problem driving skyrocketing house prices and rentals. Big business loves high immigration, because it keeps wages down. With a million more arrivals into the country fighting for the available jobs, no-one has to put wages up. On top of that, the government's inflation is stealing everyone's purchasing power. Australians are getting hit with a double whammy. If you want life to get better, unfortunately that won't happen if you vote for either Liberal or Labor. They're two wings of the same bird.

The core of all the problems is the price of electricity. The price of electricity is being artificially inflated by green United Nations net zero policies. Electricity prices affect every part of our lives, not just the power bill at the kitchen table. Without cheap power, manufacturers can't produce the products we want and need at a reasonable price, farmers can't afford to pump the water that irrigates crops and keeps cattle alive, and shops can't afford to keep the lights on and keep the doors open. So, you don't just pay the price of the UN climate net zero pipedream once, in your power bill; you pay for it again and again and again in every other bill as well.

Wind and solar cannot supply our baseload power needs. The more wind and solar that's put into the grid, the higher electricity prices go. This is a fact, and it's replicated in every country that has gone further down the United Nations net zero path than has our country. The proof is already here in Australia, too. With the highest amount of wind, solar and batteries ever on the grid, our electricity prices have never been higher, thanks to your policies If the wind and solar crowd isn't lying when they keep telling Australia that wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy—your electricity bills would be lower than ever, cheapest forever. They're lying, and we are all paying the price.

The elites of this country won't let us have a conversation on the actual solutions to these problems. Backroom party powerbrokers rule the major parties with an iron fist. Anyone who has an original thought, acts on it and steps out of line is kicked out of the party. It's actually against the Labor Party rules to cross the floor. No matter how much you morally disagree with something, if you vote with your conscience you can kiss your job goodbye. This is the rot that's corrupting our politics. We need to return this parliament to a house of states' representatives, people's representatives. That means you come here to actually represent and serve the people who elect you, not the party powerbrokers. Politicians should be warned: you've been able to get away with these dodgy deals for decades because of the apathy of the Australian people.

No more! Every day, thousands of Australians are waking up. More people than ever are watching exactly what you're doing in this chamber. They're not impressed. You might think you're clever in the way you dodge questions and in the political games you play—yes, Senator Simon Birmingham; yes, Senator Don Farrell: you think you're clever—but people see through it. Meanwhile, life is getting tougher for Australians. People won't take your hollow promises and empty performances any longer. The people of Australia are waking at last.

I'll agree with you on one point, Senator Roberts, and that is that the people of Australia are waking up to the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, they woke up a long time ago. They realise how hard it is now to pay their bills. They realise how hard it is to keep food on the table and to keep their kids going to the local sporting events, and that has been on this government's watch.

One of the things I've done very regularly in this place is stand up and counter the spin from that side on real wages. It goes on and on, and we heard it again today from Senator Polley. This is a government that's addicted to spin, particularly on this issue, so I'm going to put the facts on the record again—that is very important.

The last coalition period of government delivered real wage increases to Australian families. The Labor government under Anthony Albanese has delivered real wage decreases—real wage declines. Your take-home pay might be going up but your real buying power is going down. How can I prove this? How can I say this? It is published by the ABS every six months. This is on the record. The fact that those opposite keep saying what is a complete and utter untruth is reflective of them and of how much this Labor government is addicted to spin. For the sake of those listening and for the sake of the Hansard record, I am going to read out the real wage increases delivered under the coalition government: 0.2 per cent; than there was a slight decline, negative 0.7 per cent; then a one per cent real wage increase; 0.5 per cent; minus 0.1 per cent; 1.2 per cent plus; 0.7 per cent plus; negative 0.1 per cent; 0.4 plus; 0.6 plus; 0.5 plus; 1.5 plus; 1.4 plus; a 5.2 per cent real wage increase in the May 2020 six-month period; then positive 2.3 per cent in November 2020. And then—guess what—COVID struck. The impact of COVID struck and there were declines in real wages in the last short period of the coalition government.

By contrast, what has the Labor Party delivered in real wages? It has delivered minus 4 per cent; minus 4.1 per cent; and minus 2 per cent. Real wages are going down under this Labor government. Real wages increased in the last period of the coalition government. Don't believe the spin from those opposite. It is a complete mistruth, a complete rewriting of history. I challenge those opposite not to stand up again and say the mistruth, because they shouldn't do it. You should not stand up in this place knowing that what you're about to say is not true. The facts are clear. They're on the record; they're from the ABS. So unless you're going to stand up in here and say the ABS is lying, then you should not keep making this false claim about coalition governments not delivering real wage increases. Coalition governments do deliver real wage increases. Labor governments, or at least this Labor government, deliver declines in real wages. That's why this MPI by my friend and colleague Senator Dean Smith is so important. Holding governments to account is what oppositions do and holding this government, addicted to spin and to mistruths, is so important.

The coalition has proven that it can deliver for the people of Australia, particularly in terms of wages and in terms of ensuring that their standards of living are on the increase in a sustainable way over a long period of time. Real wage increases must be sustainable. Businesses cannot increase wages absent productivity improvements and absent improvements to their businesses' bottom lines.

I thank Senator Dean Smith for proposing this matter of public importance. As a fellow representative of the best state in the country, I know how important it is for the people of Western Australia that we stay focused on the real issues and pressures they face. We know that people are finding it tough right now, and the rising cost of living and inflation is felt around the country. However, when it comes to all the points raised by Senator Smith and Senator Brockman, there is clear action being taken by the Albanese Labor government to improve matters, while those opposite have opposed any positive action. Helping ease the pressure on Australians by tackling inflation and delivering targeted relief is our key priority. We are taking action to address the cost of living while those opposite want roadblocks, and the only contribution we hear from that side is no, no, no.

I will start with electricity prices. At the end of last year, parliament was recalled and passed measures to protect Australians from the worst surge in power prices. Our energy price relief is providing urgent energy bill relief. It is working as intended to take the sting out of power price rises when people need it most. But who opposed that? It was the exact people who now come in here and complain about rising electricity prices. If you had gotten your way, households would be paying hundreds more on their power bills without a cent of extra support. There is plenty that should be done to address electricity prices now and in the future and, despite the constant opposition to any change that will help Australians, we are getting on with the job.

The Albanese government is also taking action on housing. We've got in place short-, medium- and long-term plans to address the challenges we're facing. With the passing of the Housing Australia Future Fund here in the Senate, we are delivering the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. The $10 billion fund will create a secure and ongoing pipeline of funding for social and affordable rental housing, fulfilling the commitment the government made to the Australian people. We are working with the states and territories on this issue, and I'm really proud of what this government is doing to turn the tide, despite the many roadblocks raised by those opposite.

We also took to the election a commitment to get wages moving again, because, after a decade of stagnation, something had to change. We've always been proudly on the side of workers. Just this week, the West Australian reported that wages had increased by an average of $10 a day, the fastest increase in a decade. This hasn't happened accidentally. It has been a deliberate design feature of our economic plan, which is helping to put more money in workers' pockets.

I know that Senator Brockman won't agree with me, but you've got to admit that it has been the fastest wage increase in a decade, something that you couldn't deliver. Strong, sustainable wage growth is part of the solution to the challenges in our economy. I know it's hard to believe that we're responsible economic managers. That's not the problem, as those opposite like to argue. From advocating for an increase in the minimum wage to funding a 15 per cent wage rise for aged-care workers and changing our industrial relations laws to support secure jobs and better pay, we are serious about getting wages moving. I hope Senator Smith, along with his colleagues, can consider these facts and, instead of trying to point the finger at us, accept the fact that the coalition deliberately kept wages stagnant for a decade.

This government is laser focused on easing the pressure on families. Where we can, we have delivered relief, which you have opposed at every step of the way. We delivered cheaper child care. We delivered cheaper medicines and we have just made them even cheaper through 60-day dispensing, a measure you still can't support. We tripled the bulk-billing incentives to support 11.6 million eligible Australians, including children, pensioners and other concession holders. We are delivering fee-free TAFE and more university places. We're expanding paid parental leave and increasing flexibility. The list goes on. But you know what? We know that there is so much work to do to continue easing the pressure on Australians, and we're getting on with the job

I would suggest that the government begins doing that work. I rise to speak on the matter of public importance before us, and I thank Senator Smith for submitting the MPI, because I know that cost of living and the current crisis is certainly important to the Australian people. I know this from speaking to families and small businesses across my state of New South Wales. This is the No. 1 thing they are talking about, particularly in Western Sydney. I have been hearing about the different challenges that individuals, families and businesses are going through. They are struggling. They are struggling because of the burden imposed on them by this Albanese Labor government.

The Australian people were sold a great dream at the last election. They were told they would see cheaper power prices, cheaper mortgages and better pay. But what have we seen? We have seen higher power prices and higher mortgage repayments, and the average worker's real pay packet is no better off. People can't afford to fill their cars with petrol. People worry when their electricity and gas bills come in and wonder how they are going to be able to pay them. Households and small businesses are literally turning off the lights. People now have to make more choices about what they can put in their trolley and what they can't. People are struggling to make ends meet as mortgage repayments have pretty much doubled over the last 15 months, and we have seen rents increase as well. More Australians than ever before taking on a second or third job just to make ends meet.

This is a far cry from what the Labor Party promised at the last election. This government is focusing on the wrong things at the wrong time. Those actions—and inactions—are making this cost-of-living crisis even worse. We have seen the absolute shambles that is the Qatar decision. No-one knows who said what to who and when. There are questions about what involvement Qatar's competitor Qantas had on a government decision. But how this impacts Australian families is that their government has denied them cheaper airfares and greater choice in the market—not just for international flights but with the flow-on effect for domestic flights as well. Competition and choice pushes down prices. That's high school economics. But this transport minister and the government don't seem to understand that. Instead, this government is focused not on the national interest but on the vested interest.

We have seen this time and time again from Labor governments. They promise the world, and then they don't deliver. Recently we have seen in the June quarter accounts that Australia is actually in a per capita recession. The only thing propping up the economy now is record levels of population growth. Productivity is in freefall, with another annual fall of minus three per cent. That is a fall of three per cent. Australians with a mortgage are paying double the amount of interest compared to a year ago—double. The household savings ratio has fallen to its lowest level since March 2008.

Challenges on the global horizon are not an excuse for a lack of an economic growth agenda today. This government seems to have an excuse for everything but is unable to take responsibility for what is happening. Australians are paying a high price for a Labor government. We need to address these issues as a matter of urgency. We need this government to act in this cost-of-living crisis and in the inflationary crisis that accompanies it. The Albanese government needs to stop acting in the vested interest and start acting in the national interest. Australians are feeling great pain and they are significantly worse off under Labor.

Well, this came around quickly!

On a beautiful Sydney day on 22 July, I joined members of the US Navy, the Royal Australian Navy, senior members of the Australian Defence Force and the Defence Organisation, the diplomatic corps, parliamentary colleagues, defence industry representatives and many other passionate supporters of the Australia-US relationship at Fleet Base East as the US Navy commissioned their littoral combat ship, the USS Canberra, the first commissioning of a new US warship outside the United States. It was a spectacular, historic event and, on that day, I was given the singular honour of becoming the ship's sponsor of the USS Canberra, a unique and important role in the life of the vessel—indeed, somewhat confrontingly, making me a permanent member of the ship's crew. I made the call on that day as instructed, 'Officers and crew of the USS Canberra, man our ship and bring her to life,' and they did.

The then US Secretary of Navy, Richard Spencer, chose me as the ship's sponsor a few years ago now. Since then I have somewhat inexpertly welded my initials into the keel of the ship at the Austal shipyard in Mobile Alabama early in COVID, visited her under construction, missed the christening of the ship due to COVID and, ultimately, the commissioning was the culmination here in Sydney just eight weeks ago.

My sponsorship is a mark, I hope, of the contribution I have made to the strength and depth of the Australia-US relationship during my entire parliamentary life. Frankly, it seemed to me a fitting moment to decide to retire from this place. The time is now right for me. I am acutely aware that few parliamentarians are given the chance to choose their time of departure, such is the, shall we say, abrupt nature of the political process, so this is a good opportunity to take!

Over 26 years I have seen valedictory speeches take many forms. The form I particularly want to most avoid today is that of the eulogy; I am far from dead. Principally, I see today as an opportunity for me to thank the very many people who have supported me along my journey in this role.

That was the easy part. Here come the difficult bits. In 26 years in politics I have not managed to excise the emotional gene in me yet. I think you know how much a role means to you when, no matter how long you have been doing it, you still come to work, as I do, inspired by the privilege of working here, in the seat of our democracy. I look at this building, this chamber, every time I am here and remind myself of the immense privilege it is to represent the people of my state. I don't think that feeling will ever leave me.

For me, the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party has made it possible for me to represent my state for so long in this place. I want to thank all the members of the party in New South Wales, even the ones who hate me viscerally—they are in the minority, hopefully! There are still some of the original selectors who probably wonder how on earth they managed to select a board member of the AIDS Council of New South Wales and the deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement at the time as their new Liberal senator. Confusion reigned supreme. But I have always been transparent about my views. I have always been a small-l liberal. I have never taken a backward step.

I particularly acknowledge the women of my division, many of whom are close friends and mentors and who walked what was a somewhat narrow path with me to elected office. Within our Women's Council, I am grateful to the legendary three Bettys—Betty Coombe, Betty Grant and Betty Davy, all formidable in their own ways, all stalwart Liberals and all great supporters and friends. Following in their steps, presidents Chris McDiven and Robyn Parker were always there. I have been blessed with the friendship of amazing women across the party and here in the parliament. I know that, without them, my political career would have been much lonelier.

We are a coalition, and I want to acknowledge and thank our Nationals colleagues for that robust relationship. I have particularly valued the friendship of Nationals Senate colleagues and also that of the late Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer and his wife, Judy Brewer, and former Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and his wife, Catherine. It was largely due to Tim Fischer's influence and support of my foreign policy interests that I was in Kathmandu 22 years ago this week, on September 11—unforgettable. There are many stories I could share about that day and those following. Of course, so much changed for Australia, our region and the world from that day onward. I was also in Timor-Leste with Tim Fischer in 1999 as he led Australia's observer mission to the popular consultation leading to their independence—a truly momentous experience in my life, seeing a new country awaken.

Our families make a particular sacrifice when we enter political life. Today I acknowledge my brother, William, and my sister-in-law, Fiona, who are here with me, and their two adult children. I thank them all for putting up with the absences, the incessant phone interruptions and the general exigencies of being part of a political family. When I gave my first speech, my mother was also here that day. She passed away many years ago now, but I will never forget the kindness extended to me, as her fairly inadequate carer, by then Labor Senate leader Chris Evans. Chris literally made it possible, by his agreement to very extended pairing arrangements, for me to care much more for my mother than this life would otherwise have allowed. It was very generous—I took out the hard bits of this sentence!—and I was very grateful, and that extra time made such a difference for both of us. I mention this today because I fear many Australians think that politicians are a pretty soulless lot, that we don't work particularly well together let alone help each other. I know that that is not the case.

I acknowledge and thank my partner, Stuart Ayres, for his enduring support and love, and I thank his family as well. At least Stuart had the inside running on knowing what politics was like when he decided to step up in Penrith! We worked together, particularly on championing the cause for our amazing community across Western Sydney, and I know we have made a difference.

As so many of us are able to say, I have had outstanding staff over many years in my electorate office in Parramatta and in my ministerial and shadow ministerial staff. From Parramatta we literally worked from one end of Western Sydney to another. We built relationships. We engaged in community organisations, with business and schools and multicultural communities, with Western Sydney University and countless other areas of life across the west. I've loved seeing Western Sydney transform in front of me, in all its fabulous diversity, and I have been proud to work in a government that took commitment to this fast-growing area of Sydney seriously. Today I acknowledge the current members of 'Team Payne': Michael Creed, Kate York, Christian Martinazzo and Pedro Roh from my Parramatta office; our part-timers, Zaccary Lancaster, Mollie Uzowuru and Cameron Last; and my shadow ministerial adviser, Erika Cevallos. Thank you, all.

I was the beneficiary of exceptional advice and leadership from my ministerial chiefs of staff, Megan Lees, Sarah de Zoeten and Justin Bassi, and the excellent teams they led. In a cabinet minister's office it's a continual churn of work—of hourly, if not by-the-minute, issues and, to be fair, the occasional problem, small and big. I want to thank each of them for the work they did for our nation, the support they gave to me. I am forever in their debt.

I have great respect for the Australian Public Service, and to the many public servants with whom I worked over the years: I thank you. From innumerable estimates committees—on both sides of the table for me—to working with Human Services staff supporting bushfire victims who had lost everything, working with the ADF and Defence APS members in some of the most challenging and dangerous environments possible, running multiple women's roundtables around the country with the Office for Women, and seeing the reach and impact of our diplomats and their efforts for Australia around the world, they deserve all our thanks, and they certainly have mine.

I've spent a lot of time on the road in the last 26 years, and not just in Australia but globally. Sometimes it's meant I've been accompanied by protective security from the Australian Federal Police, sometimes from the ADF. Some of you may recall that my strong respect and admiration for the AFP developed soon after my arrival here, from my engagement with their UN CIVPOL deployment to Timor-Leste for that popular consultation in 1999. To those members of the Australian Federal Police who've since provided me with close personal protection, I want to say thank you. You make a substantial difference to how we can do our jobs and to ensuring the worst does not happen. From encountering armed militia roadblocks in Timor-Leste to terrifying, dangerous driving in too many countries, which literally could only be stopped by a police officer, I have thanked my lucky stars repeatedly over the years for the AFP's protection.

Of course, I want to thank those who make this place work: here in the chamber, our Clerk and his staff and our hardworking chamber attendants; the library and DPS teams; the scores of women and men who clean and maintain this vast, extraordinary building in our national capital; the hospitality and catering staff and the baristas; the parliamentary security officers, who ensure our safety; and countless others. I thank the Comcar drivers who have looked after me for so many years. Happily, we were not in a horse and wagon when I started, but the vehicles have certainly changed. They've particularly looked after me on the journey from Western Sydney to the city, to the airport or to Canberra. If I may in particular single out one: John Stikovic, the last permanent driver in New South Wales, who has always been the epitome of professionalism and courtesy and helped me get from point A to point B more than any other driver. For the frosty 0500 starts and the late nights, I apologise to John and all his colleagues.

Madam President, I came to this chamber many years ago with a passion for Australia's place in the world, and ultimately I was distinctly honoured to serve in the roles of Minister for Defence and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enabling me to give real meaning to that passion in our region and around the world. I'm the daughter, a very emotional daughter, of a World War II Army veteran, and both parents of my partner, Stuart—his mother, Lesley, and his father, Garry—have served in the Royal Australian Air Force, and Garry Ayres first served in the Royal Australian Navy in Vietnam. They are my heroes—all three of them. I thank them and all current and former service women and men for their service.

The honour of serving as defence minister is one that I share with my leader, and with my friend Senator Reynolds. It is the greatest privilege. We have the opportunity to stand in this parliament because of the service to our country of so many women and men who have worn the uniform of our nation, who have fought for and defended the democratic values that ultimately bring us together here, notwithstanding our political differences: freedom, rule of law and respect for human rights—fundamentals of our democracy. The debt we owe the women and men who defend those values every day is incalculable. I sincerely thank the families of our service personnel as well. You have my eternal gratitude.

President, if ever I needed a reminder of why the principles of our democracy matter, it occurred early in my career. In 1998 I visited Yad Vashem Jerusalem, and I know many colleagues have been there. It's a compelling, devastating reminder of the horrors of World War II and the imperative to ensure they are never repeated. Perhaps less well-known is the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh. It tells the story of the Cambodian genocide. It's a former school which was used as a prison for torture—and worse—by the Khmer Rouge. It is simple, rudimentary even, and so confronting. Is there anything more perverse than turning a school into a torture chamber of horrors? I challenge anyone to walk past the walls of photographs of those who were incarcerated and tortured there without viscerally feeling the horror of that place. I recall visiting Tuol Sleng with Senator Meg Lees and others. We left in silence, and I recall neither of us spoke for some time. Man's inhumanity to man was writ large, graphically, in front of us—another salutary reminder of why we do what we do in this place.

As defence minister and foreign minister, I served during the most rapid changes in the global strategic environment since the Second World War. As a government which had the strongest focus on national security, we delivered the 2016 Defence white paper and its associated opportunities for the Australian defence industry, enabling the rebuilding of defence materiel and infrastructure in this country after years of neglect and underfunding. We delivered multiple Indo-Pacific Australian Navy deployments in our region, the Pacific Maritime Security Program and strong engagement on regional and global counterterror initiatives, amongst many others. I remind the chamber, with the utmost seriousness, that our vigilance against the genuine, continuing threat of terrorism must not be lost in the raft of other challenges that we face. I genuinely fear that occurring.

As a government, we responded strongly and emphatically in response to foreign interference in our democracy, enacting the earliest anti-foreign-interference laws amongst like-minded countries. We protected our 5G network from foreign actors, restricted political donations by foreign entities, protected the security of critical infrastructure and reformed the foreign investment system. As foreign minister, I introduced legislation to establish Australia's Foreign Arrangements Scheme, ensuring that arrangements between state and territory government and foreign governments do not adversely affect our foreign relations and are not inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy. These were essential steps in the face of actions by authoritarian states, protecting our sovereignty, our national security and our democracy. The recent experience of the UK parliament is a salutary warning. What was the alternative? Not to act? Not to protect our nation? To bend to threats and coercion? That's untenable, and it must still be untenable. No matter what blandishments are received or what overtures are made, we must maintain an absolute focus on this threat.

As a government we also faced a global pandemic with the extraordinary circumstances it delivered around the world. Notwithstanding the efforts by some to rewrite history, Australia emerged from COVID-19 stronger than the vast majority of the world. We quickly adapted our own development assistance to support our friends in the Pacific and South-East Asia. We delivered millions of vaccines and provided budget support to economies crushed by the pandemic.

From a quick scan—and my staff won't thank me for that—my calendar tells me that I participated in at least 600-plus online and video international engagements throughout COVID. Quite a few were from my house in Deakin in the middle of the night. That helped us to stay connected and engaged. We were able to work hand-in-hand with our partners and allies to maintain and grow relationships, even given the isolation of the pandemic. It was extremely important.

There's one further matter with which I want to end my comments today. In 2021, the Afghan government in Kabul fell, and the Taliban retook that country, a country in which 41 Australian soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice. It means a lot to Australia. As the United States made the decision to leave Afghanistan, Australia also led our own operation to evacuate people from Kabul. At a time of indescribable chaos and fear, we evacuated over 4,000 people. I want to acknowledge my own staff, particularly Justin Bassi and Chris McNicol, my ministerial colleagues, and the DFAT officials, the ADF members, the Defence and Home Affairs officials who worked in such difficult and dangerous conditions in Kabul. It was, without exaggeration, a phenomenal effort.

For those who came to Australia, particularly the young women, I am so happy that you are safe here and have new lives. I've enjoyed meeting with some of you, and I thank you for sharing your experience with me. I love the Afghan women cricketers and the women football players—I got a new video from Craig Foster this week—and seeing the pure joy that they experience just from the freedom to play the sport they love. I also know that for many here there is still pain for those left behind, for the family and friends who face Taliban rule every day. Tragically, there are recent reports of a disturbing surge in female suicides in the past two years. It's their only answer, stemming from the oppression and deprivation once again faced by Afghan women.

Colleagues, I met some amazing Afghan women on my visits over the years. Every single one of those women's lives has been irrevocably changed for the worse. Human Rights Watch has recently concluded that many of the abuses against Afghan women and girls amount to crimes against humanity, of persecution based on gender. This is unfinished business for all of us. The injustice of this treatment of women sticks in my heart and my head. The world must never look away, no matter where such injustice occurs, and particularly not from the women and girls of Afghanistan.

Today, as I said, has come around very quickly. I thank those who've watched online and those who've come to the chamber for this valedictory: my family and friends; my leader and friend, Peter Dutton; and my parliamentary colleagues. I thank my Senate colleagues around the chamber for your longstanding collegiality and friendship. To coalition senators: we are a really great team, and I know that you will continue the fight for what we all believe with everything you have. To my Senate leader, Simon Birmingham: thank you for everything.

I've served my party, my state and this nation passionately, diligently and to the best of my ability in this place. I think, in cricket terms—and I have consulted, maybe with a former sports minister—it's 260 not out, carrying the bat. I'm very proud of my time here, and it's been a privilege. I thank the Senate.

I rise to place on record my personal and the government's thanks and congratulations to Senator Payne for her contribution since she first entered this place in 1997! Senator Wong would have liked to have been giving this address this afternoon, but duty has called her away. But she was able to put on record her compliments for your terrific contribution to the Senate.

All of us in this place know the sacrifice senators make to contribute their vision of a better future for Australia, but very few senators make that sacrifice for 26 years, and, with 26 years of service, Senator Payne is the longest-serving current senator. Throughout her parliamentary career, I know that Senator Payne has sought to be a leader for women and girls and to encourage women to get involved in politics. She's been a role model for many as the longest-serving female senator in Australian history, and I know the inspiration it must have provided to many across Australia to see such a talented senator being sworn in as Australia's first female defence minister. Defence, of course, wasn't the only portfolio where Marise was a role model, and other ministerial responsibilities have included the important portfolios of human services, women and foreign affairs—and I will come back to foreign affairs in a moment.

As a representative of the state of New South Wales, Senator Payne fought tirelessly for the people of New South Wales and in particular those in Western Sydney. I'd like to take a moment to reflect on some of my personal memories of Senator Payne. I first got to know Senator Payne and her partner, Stuart, when he was running for the seat of Penrith in New South Wales in 2010. I was handing out how-to-vote cards at the Glenbrook booth with the late Senator Steve Hutchins and my good friend Senator Mark Bishop—and, of course, it was the first time I got to meet my namesake, soon-to-be Premier Barry O'Farrell, and we got the chance to chat while we were handing out how-to-vote cards for many, many hours.

However, my abiding memory of Senator Payne will be the assistance that she personally gave to an Afghan family during the fall of Kabul. She made reference to this in her own speech. I was contacted by the brother-in-law of former Crows coach Graham Cornes about a man who had worked for the Australian embassy in Kabul. The Taliban at the time was going from door to door to find him and, of course, arrest him and, in all probability, kill him. I contacted Senator Payne very late at night, and within 24 hours this man had his papers to leave Afghanistan and an airline ticket to Australia. He brought with him his wife and his three children, including a daughter. You can imagine what life she would have had ahead of her under Taliban rule. Senator Payne, she will forever remember what you did for her on that night.

I was sitting with Senator Payne last week. She made no mention of the fact that she was about to leave, but I do feel as if I may have contributed to the move because I pointed out that, thanks to the scheduling of this place, we're actually sitting on Melbourne Cup Day. Now, Melbourne Cup Day is an event I often see Senator Payne and Stuart at. I'm just wondering now, looking back at that conversation, when she realised that she wasn't going to be able to leave the Senate on that occasion to go down—I don't know whether she's got any horses running on the day; she very well could—whether it provoked this sudden resignation. But, on behalf of the government, I congratulate Senator Payne on her 26 years of dedicated service to the people of New South Wales and this Senate. On behalf the government, I wish you all the best for a life beyond the Senate.

There are very few people, particularly very few senators, who I could compare with or draw an analogy to involving a horse and not land myself in trouble, but I suspect that my dear friend Marise—or, at least, I hope—as a great lover of thoroughbreds and the sport of kings, may enjoy a little of the analogy to come.

The Italian trainer Federico Tesio said that a horse gallops with his lungs, perseveres with his heart and wins with his character. Marise Payne has given her all to public service, to parliamentary service and to service in the pursuit of her liberal beliefs and in the interests of the Liberal Party, but, most of all, to service for the benefit of her community and of our great nation. In parliamentary terms, Marise has galloped the long race and persevered through the barbs, setbacks and tribulations of politics, and she ultimately stands tall today, admired both here in the Senate and far afield around the world, thanks overwhelmingly to the strength of her character.

I note that a unique factor of equestrian sport, whether at an Olympic level or horse racing, is that it has no regard for gender. Men and women compete equally, exactly as Marise has done in her career. Marise will depart the Senate having created history and having made a powerful contribution to Australia. She has been a Liberal senator for New South Wales since 9 April 1997. Senator Farrell has noted that Marise will depart as the longest-serving woman in the history of the Senate and the 21st longest-serving senator in Australian history.

While these records of long service may one day be broken, it will forever stand in the history books that in September of 2015 Marise became the first woman to be appointed as Australia's Minister for Defence, breaking through a glass barrier in a very male dominated domain and setting an example for women and girls across our nation—not just in politics and public life, but especially across and within our defence forces. In August 2018, Marise also became the second woman to serve as Minister for Foreign Affairs, while equally holding ministerial office over nearly a decade as Minister for Women and Minister for Human Services.

But the contributions Marise has made stretch far beyond the significant offices she has held. Through tumultuous times, Marise led Australia's international engagement, including the regional support necessitated by COVID-19, the coordinated international response in the earliest of days to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and, as we have heard from Marise, the repatriation of thousands from Afghanistan. It matters to hear just how much that mattered to Marise. That is what people should bring to this place—that it cares and that it matters to them. There's Marise's reference to the Australian women's cricket team and Don's reference to the personal engagement he had, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other such examples of those who reached out directly to Marise in relation to that instance but also to so many others.

At different times during Marise's tenure as Minister for Defence and Minister for Foreign Affairs, she oversaw Australia making the largest non-NATO contribution towards peace and in defence of international rules and norms in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Ukraine. It's a reminder of just some of the scale of what we saw. Marise equally oversaw responses in Australia's role in responding to Daesh during that group's cruel and ruthless occupation of around a third of Iraq and Syria, a highly successful, multinational campaign that destroyed the territorial caliphate claimed by Daesh and a reminder, as she put it, of just how important it is for us to suppress those who would promote terrorism in any and all instances. Indeed, even closer to home, there's the little-known, little-recorded support for the Philippines in its retaking of the city of Marawi, after the Daesh-aligned terrorist group occupied that city. It was an act well-recalled and well-acknowledged by the Philippines at that time.

As foreign minister, Marise led reform through this parliament in Australia's interest, overseeing reform of our international sanctions regime by the adoption of Magnitsky-style sanctions and becoming the first minister to apply them through the introduction of new legislative regimes to protect Australia from foreign interference, to ensure that our foreign relations are in our national interest at all times and to ensure that our policies and legislative settings protect our sovereignty, our democracy and our systems, just as we seek them do so around the world.

That Marise's tenure coincided with a significant change in the outward posture by the largest nation in our region is a fact. Strategic competition has changed the game and, as is increasingly evident under a new government, it isn't always easy and will not be straightforward to counter those who play by different rules to Australia. Nonetheless, the opening up of six new Australian missions was just one part of the Pacific Step-up that Marise led, with other components, including establishing big new financing streams such as the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, direct financing support and climate financing support for Pacific Island nations, provided directly to help with their adaptation and response.

The strengthening of our national security through the elevation of the Quad, through the different stages of its elevation, towards ministerial dialogue and ultimately leader-level dialogue, is a big accomplishment of Marise Payne, along with the establishment of AUKUS. Marise equally successfully leveraged Australia's international standing to further increase our global influence by running successful campaigns for Australian candidates for a number of key international positions, with the OECD, the Committee on the Elimination of Discriminatory against Women and in the leadership of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

A large but often less spoken of aspect of the work of a foreign minister is the consular support. We heard a little of that in terms of the Afghan repatriation, but there are countless such examples. Marise took those to heart, as we have seen here, but always delivered with a calm head her negotiations, efforts and strategies to seek to free, in particular, arbitrarily detained Australians and dual citizens, showing personal care and engagement for them and with their families, securing support from third or fourth party nations, quietly enlisting and deploying special envoys all seeking to make a difference to save the lives of others.

While Minister for Defence, Marise oversaw the finalisation of the 2016 Defence white paper, elevation of the defence budget to two per cent GDP, vast new investment in defence capability and the development of stronger counterterrorism responsiveness across the ADF. A striking feature of Marise's long connection to our Defence Force, both as minister and also through her many years in Senate committee service, was the extraordinarily high regard that Marise is held in by service personnel across Australia. Just as she respected their service, they too respect her willingness to listen, care and engage with them.

It has been pointed out to me that there are two framed memorials that hang in pride of place in Marise's office, memorials that I would have walked past and observed many times, but the symbolism of them matters most when we are seeking to understand somebody in a contribution to their service such as Marise's. The first is a collection of portraits of every ADF member killed in Afghanistan. The second is the sonar scan of the hull of Australia's first submarine loss, HMAS AE1. The former of these, of those who served in Afghanistan, its symbolism and significance are evident to all of us. But many will not have reflected upon HMAS AE1. It was a submarine lost with all hands on a combat patrol against German forces off the coast of what we know as Papua New Guinea in September 1914. Thirteen searches over 104 years were unsuccessful in finding it. But in 2017, Marise Payne authorised and approved funding for the 14th search and it was successfully found, the final resting place of the 35 officers and sailors. Lest any of us forget all who have served, because Marise certainly never has and never will.

As the minister for Women, Marise worked to deliver new initiatives to counter family and domestic violence, address critical areas of women's health and advance the leadership role of women in Australia, doing so with her colleagues and counterparts, always seeking that influence.

Marise has, right from the days of being the first of a woman to be elected as federal president of the Young Liberal movement in 1989, shown a great determination to push through barriers while applying a sharp intellect but never losing the caring and considering instinct for all around her. She has sought to mentor and inspire, to encourage new generations, especially of young Liberals. I certainly still vividly remember 16½ years ago, walking through those doors for the first time as a senator, former Senator Fifield to one side of me and Marise on the other side, each having in different ways helped and contributed to the journey to be here.

I would never at that time have imagined that we would go on to share a department—Marise as Minister for Foreign Affairs, me as minister for trade. Sharing a department as ministers can sometimes break friendships, it is safe to say. Ours was an unusual arrangement for the department too. The foreign minister—I'm sorry to say, Don—is usually treated as the senior minister by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the ministerial pecking order, I was the senior minister, but none of that ever mattered because our relationship was such that we were able always to work through each and every one of the challenges before us and we proved to the department how effectively a team could get things done. Personally, I could not have asked for a better friend or more trustworthy confidante throughout my own Senate career and I am grateful for every minute of that to date. The old Truman quote, 'if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog' does not hold true for me. Marise Payne is the living truth and evidence for me that you can have friends in politics.

Again and again, Marise has shown her respect for the institution of the Senate, the primacy of the parliament and the unique role of the parliamentarian. That has been demonstrated whether it is in service on privileges committees or by being entrusted with difficult work, even in this parliament in recent times, around development of codes of conduct and the challenges to modernise some of those issues within parliament. It is also evident in the fact that Marise also does everything properly. There have been changes to language and slippage over the years. While questions nowadays often say 'My question is to the minister. Will you…' If you give that to Marise on a question, I will always hear the words 'Will the minister confirm …' Never will she put a foot wrong in that regard!

That doesn't mean that Marise has always done everything by the book in the chamber. One of my most favoured memories of the last time we had to endure sitting on this side of the chamber was coming down for frontbench duty. I must have been a very new and young frontbencher at that time. Marise was sitting there, where Senator Ruston is right now, with her laptop open in front of her. As I plonked myself down next to her I asked, 'What are you looking at?' It was her horse, racing. I forget precisely where it was racing—maybe the country races at—

It was at Randwick!

Randwick! Goodness! Hello—I take it back, I withdraw: it was Randwick. It was a very serious race, so little wonder that Marise, being diligent enough not to have swapped her frontbench duty, wasn't going to miss watching the race at Randwick. So we sat there together in the seats where Senator Cash and Senator Ruston are sitting now and we watched him come home for the win. I think the clerks at the table were completely befuddled as to what on earth was happening in the seats next to them as we saw Marise's horse win.

Marise was a challenge, I'm sure, for Penny to follow in the foreign ministry in a range of ways, but was so equally for me in international engagement—and, no doubt, for Don. It's because her precise pronunciation and elocution in everything is something none of the rest of us can live up to. Former senator Fifield used to love to play a particular game with Marise, back in the days when you could find a karaoke bar in Canberra and it was acceptable to go there at night. Outside the karaoke, Mitch would pose questions to Marise about when something or other would happen, desperately hoping that the answer would mean her saying 'Wednes-day'. I'm still not doing it justice—Wed-nes-day! Indeed, every syllable was precisely pronounced. But that certainly served well in international engagement.

President, against the realpolitik we all work within, Marise has held true to her values and beliefs, and fought tirelessly for the people of New South Wales, in particular in Western Sydney and particularly alongside Stuart. She has been a passionate liberal, both philosophically and politically. The high regard Marise enjoys internationally is exemplified in her recent nomination by the United States, as she started her remarks with, to act as the ship's sponsor for the USS Canberra, the first US Navy ship to ever be commissioned outside the US. She already serves on the board of the Observer Research Foundation America, and I have no doubt there will be many more such contributions to come. It's impossible for me to meet with foreign ministers, or former foreign ministers, around the world in my current role and not have them speak highly of Marise or extending their best wishes to Marise. I know that so many of them continue to engage with her.

What she demonstrated today was a reminder to all of us that being here matters, that it always matters and always deserves our respect and gratitude for the opportunity to be here. So we farewell Marise from this Australian Senate, but I know that the work she does in the future will always matter; that she will continue to work for Australia and for global peace and prosperity, and that I will leave here with a very dear lifelong friend.

Firstly, I would like to associate myself and my colleagues with the comments already made by Senator Farrell and Senator Birmingham. Marise, what an incredible contribution you have made to this place, to this country and, frankly, to the globe.

When I first came into the parliament as a young woman in this place—not so young anymore!—I was told right up front that there was one woman who I needed to make friends with, one person who knew how to work across the chamber. As a crossbencher, and a woman, that was the person I needed to get to know. That came from all sides of politics, the very strong advice to get to know Marise and understand how she worked.

Right from the beginning, it was clear to me that Senator Payne was able to work across party lines. We've seen over and over again—and it's funny how, at these moments, when we think about when the parliament is at its best, it's always when people are working across party lines, when we get out of the trenches. We might not always all be working in the same way, by the way, but it is that cross-party support on an issue that you're passionate about, that you know is fundamentally right, that view you want to be able to ensure is heard. Of course, for Marise women's equality has been front and centre, and I really thank you for that. Your leadership in this place and in this building and the country has been phenomenal, and don't ever forget that. And we hear now today, in your valedictory speech, you end your career with the very same passion and value for looking after women wherever they are, whether they are young women in Australia wanting an ability to control our bodies how we like or women in Afghanistan who are facing the most treacherous, horrific, inhumane torture that you've described.

I remember working across party lines on marriage equality with Marise Payne. I think I put up nine private members' bills for marriage equality before it all happened, and, each time, Marise would give me a smile. In those last few, of course, we saw the numbers really start to change. You were on the right side of history then, and I think that will forever be an important moment. Change doesn't happen overnight, and it certainly doesn't happen overnight in this place, but honesty and collaboration is what drives real change. It doesn't matter what side of politics you're on; we can't achieve anything—any of us—on our own, or our parties cannot achieve anything on their own. It's this place and collaboration that makes the real difference.

Senator Payne has been a trailblazer: the longest serving woman in the Senate—a pretty incredible effort. I did say to Marise earlier this week, after hearing her announcement of retirement, that she's seen some stuff! It wasn't quite the word I used, but in her time she's certainly seen some stuff. I would like to think that, over that time, particularly for women in this building, things have gotten better. I think we talk about this issue in a way that we never would have before. It doesn't matter what side of politics you're on; as women we're empowered more than ever by each other to speak up and call out bad behaviour, to call each other up, to hold each other to account. Because of that, this place is getting better. Marise was there for me when I had to call out bad behaviour, particularly of the former senator David Leyonhjelm. Thank you, Marise. I remember those moments.

And, of course, one of the things that I've always appreciated is that, when you have the late-night debates and the issues are sometimes very dry or sometimes very passionate, Marise always has this way—it doesn't matter how late it is at night in the debates—to deliver her humour in such a dry, witty way. We will miss that, particularly in the late-night sessions.

But it's not just dry wit that Senator Payne has. You have a very incredible—through you, Mr Deputy President. I'm just correcting myself! Senator Payne has an ability to be very direct in her communication as well, and that serves us all well because we can only get things done when you actually are able to trust what the person opposite you is saying. So much of the way we operate in this chamber is knowing where you stand, and you always know where you stand with Senator Payne. You know when she's not happy with you and you know when she thinks you're doing alright. So, that direct communication is something I have always valued from you, Marise.

The third ingredient to the longstanding, incredible contribution Marise Payne has given in this chamber to her country is—beyond the dry wit, beyond the direct communication—the ability for empathy. And your empathy still shines through, and we saw that again this afternoon: your ability to have an understanding for somebody else's perspective and to listen and to feel what they feel. We could all learn a bit more about that.

Thank you so much for your contribution, for your amazing trailblazing in this place, for the leadership, particularly from one female senator to another. Good luck. Enjoy the next adventure. And we hope you don't keep hearing those phantom bells ringing! Thank you.

It gives me great pleasure—a moment to dry my eyes!—to rise not as Leader of the Nationals but as a female leader in this place who has served in cabinet with the fabulous senator for New South Wales Marise Payne. We sat in leadership meetings—a great privilege—where you have to decide and discuss incredibly serious and important matters for our nation. Marise, I had all these notes. I was going to go through so many firsts. Among those of us who have had the great privilege as well as the weight of being firsts, you have just rocked it, and you rocked it for me the first day I met you, when there weren't as many women in this place as there are now, when there was only one woman in our cabinet. The difference you have made by pursuing, in a very determined, single-minded way—which only a redhead can do, I can say as the mother of a redhead!—a force of nature. You stand up and say: 'No, this shall not pass. You shall not pass. You are not going to do this.' And from your forceful strength of character, in so many small conversations and big conversations, change has happened—big change has happened—that is going to impact this place right now and impact those of us who've had the great honour of serving you and watching you and being led by you as well as the generations of now-young women and unborn women who are going to serve their nation in the decades to come, just as you have.

I want to say thank you for the laughs. I want to say thank you for the tears and the honesty and the integrity that you have brought to this place, to your role, to every forum I have sat on and been a decision-maker with you. I do love that you are a mad cat, as my eldest is. I love that I can always find you and usually Stuart, but not always—hopefully more now than previously—together at my fabulous Spring Racing Carnival in Melbourne, at your favourite spot, looking over the straight. I wish you all the best with your foals and your ponies—not so much with the cats; I'm not a cat person, but I do understand that there are others in the chamber who will mention the cats.

I want to thank you for being a powerful advocate, for being brave and courageous when it wasn't cool or easy. It wasn't easy. Because of your leadership, it's easier for me and it will be easier again for the next generation. Go well, and don't be a stranger.

Whilst, yes, it is an absolute privilege to be able to stand here tonight to celebrate the illustrious career of our dear friend and colleague Marise Payne, I have to say right from the start that for me it is tinged with sadness. When you come to this place as a new senator it's interesting because you think that you'll make certain friends and they'll be your friends right throughout your career—and you certainly do that—but you also forge lifelong friendships with people that perhaps you never thought you would. I think certainly for Marise and me that has been the case.

Like Sarah Hanson-Young, I was warned about Marise before I came here. All I can say is that I was just bloody scared—'God Almighty, help me. It's Marise Payne. Oh my gosh.' I soon learnt very quickly that Marise is an incredibly deep person and an incredibly private person. I think that sometimes over the years did upset members of the press gallery. I hope many of them have actually listened to in particular Marise's valedictory tonight but also the contribution made by our leader, Senator Birmingham, because through those contributions I think Australians have learnt that little bit more about the exact value of the 26 years that Marise Payne has spent in this place.

Marise, so while, yes, we started out as colleagues, I have to say—and not a lot of people know this—that, like Bridget and you, we have become incredibly good friends. There is no doubt—and again I listened to both you and Simon tonight—that you have been a truly exceptional servant of the Australian people. Your unwavering commitment to Australia has left an indelible mark on our nation. I have to say that 26 years in any political life—in fact, 20 years in political life—is astounding. Most people celebrate 10 years in political life, but you've spent 26 years in the Australian Senate.

I was thinking of words that would define those 26 years as that comes to a close. Those words have been reflected in the contributions that we have heard tonight: dedication—and I'll have a little bit more to say about that when I address your time as our foreign minister—leadership, and there are no two ways about that; and significant contributions to both domestic and international affairs. You have maintained without a doubt a steadfast dedication to our nation and, as I said, you have—and sometimes it takes a little bit of time for people to understand this, and it often happens when you actually end your time in politics—had a profound impact on our political landscape.

Serving as a senator for New South Wales since 1997—how proud that you are now the longest-serving woman in the Senate in Australia's history. That is absolutely incredible. At any one time there are only 76 of us, who, as you said, have the privilege to walk into this place and are allowed to walk onto the floor of this chamber as senators. And you are the longest-serving female senator. That is, quite frankly, truly remarkable. I know Senator Birmingham has said that it may well one day be surpassed, but I have to say that with 26 years it is honestly going to take some time.

You have always demonstrated—and certainly I saw it when you were supporting Stuart, particularly when he was the member for Penrith—a deep-seated commitment to the people you represent. I think one of the most outstanding aspects of your career has been the impressive portfolio list. It did not matter what portfolio you were holding, you always displayed outstanding leadership—and I had the privilege of sitting round the cabinet table and on the national security committee of cabinet with you—and unwavering dedication.

You were the Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Defence. I have to say, colleagues, that when Marise was the Minister for Defence, she had to be not in two places at one time but in two countries at one time! That often can cause a few issues, but she came to me and said, 'Michaelia, would you do me the privilege of representing me at a number of high-level defence meetings in Washington?' I said that it would be a privilege and an honour, and indeed it was. When I arrived in Washington and commenced a number of meetings on your behalf, Marise, with the administration and with members of the defense force, what struck me was that they went out of their way to tell me just how much they respected you. They told me how much they appreciated the way in which you worked with them and also your commitment to the relationship between the United States of America and Australia. They didn't have to say that to me, but they went out of their way to do so.

You were the Minister for Foreign Affairs. One thing most Australians will never know about the Minister for Foreign Affairs is that you never ask them, 'Did you get any sleep last night?' You certainly don't say to them, at 11 pm or midnight, when you're exiting this building, 'I hope you're going home to get some sleep.' That's because, without a doubt, the answer from Marise, when I would leave at some very strange hours, as so many cabinet ministers do, would be, 'I've got a 2 am phone call with the president'—or the minister, of whatever. People often just don't know what a minister does, in particular the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have to say, perhaps one of my proudest moments in this place working with you—and you will remember this—was when we stood together as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General of this country on 14 March 2022. We made the announcement, after collaborating, that Australia, in conjunction with our counterparts in the Netherlands, had initiated legal proceedings against the Russian Federation in the International Civil Aviation Organisation for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in 2014. I will never forget the work that you did behind the scenes to ensure that we were in a position where, as a country joining with the Netherlands, we were able to make that announcement, take that step and ultimately hold the Russian Federation to account.

Your role in establishing the historic AUKUS partnership—and I'm sure Senator Reynolds will speak more about that—was again so much. In fact, 99 per cent of that had to be done behind the scenes, for very obvious reasons. People don't know exactly what happened, but you were certainly there. On Afghanistan, I also want to make some comments here to build on what Senator Birmingham and Senator McKenzie said. Sitting around the National Security Committee of cabinet at that time, when as a country we were evacuating Afghanistan, was probably one of the most humbling moments of my life. Most Australians will never understand the decisions that we had to make. They will never understand the speed at which those decisions had to be made. If the meeting was called at five in the morning, we were at that meeting. We were at that meeting, though, to be briefed by Marise Payne, who had been up all night working with like-minded countries and our defence force here on how we were getting a plane in. We had to get in at a particular time and in a particular landing slot. Everything had to be in order. It had to be, quite literally, a military-like operation to ensure that we were able as a country to do what we ultimately did. As you said, that was to provide so many with a place that they could call home.

In terms of being the Minister for Women, most people know your public record, but what most people will never know is what you did behind closed doors. They won't know how you constantly kept holding our cabinet, in particular, to account. I don't think there was a cabinet meeting that I attended from 2015 to 2022 where Marise did not raise the fact that we needed to do more to (a) diversify our parliament, and (b) ensure that there would be more women—it didn't matter what the role was. Marise would always hold us to account.

In Marise's statement, she said 'We come from opposite sides of the country and furthest ends of the Liberal Party, but yes, we have always been there for each other when needed.' I really do thank you for that public acknowledgement of friendship, because in this place most people will never see what goes on behind doors. Sometimes, particularly given the roles that a number of us have had in this place when in government, you actually just need to sit down and be able to talk to someone, and Marise was always there for any one of us who needed a chat.

I will conclude my comments, because others want to speak, but the one thing that will bind Stuart, Marise and I forever—too bad, so sad, Bridget McKenzie—is the fact that there are very few people in life you can actually send crazy cat emojis or pictures to and not have them think you are a crazy cat lady, because they know in their own hearts they've already crossed that bridge a long time ago. I still expect to get pictures of Frankie and Ella. I still want regular updates about your children, because that is obviously a bond that we share. Despite everything else, you can always have a laugh. Marise, I look forward to joining you one day and becoming a crazy cat lady—if I am not already one.

In closing, as we reflect on your remarkable 26-year career, I acknowledge the dedication, the hard work and the principled leadership that you have consistently demonstrated. Your legacy, as has been said, is one of service, integrity and unwavering commitment to the betterment of our nation. Your successful tenure in the Australian Senate, culminating in your outstanding service as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is a testament to your enduring commitment to Australia and its people. We will all miss you in this place. You've been my seat buddy for a very long time, but I really do wish both you and Stuart the very best for the future.

I too rise today deeply saddened at the loss of my bench buddy. I cried today in your speech. I have cried in this chamber only a couple of times, and Marise has been with me for all of them. Once, it was crying with laughter, and the reason was that Marise, sitting in front of Johnno and I, who were sitting behind, had given an impassioned speech about Islamic terrorism, but instead of referring to the Scott Ryan as Mr President, referred to him as Mr Terrorist. Johnno and I lost it, behind her, and the tears of laughter came.

Another time was pretty early on in my time here, when we passed same-sex marriage. I was a rookie senator at that stage, and I made some decisions that I knew would have potential consequences for the longevity of my own career here by doing that. I was pretty nervous about some of those decisions, and at the end of it, when that legislation passed, you grabbed me by the shoulders and said, 'You are brave.' It was so meaningful, because my hero had just told me I was brave. Of course, now I am blubbing again.

Isn't it extraordinary that this is the only senator in this place that was here during the last referendum! It's such a long career. She is the only senator who can say she served in this chamber through every term of government since the first term of the Howard government. She has been here for the debates that have defined our time, and the time before that, and the time before that. She has seen the passage of the GST, the creation of the NDIS, the National Redress Scheme, the Future Fund, same-sex marriage, WorkChoices, Fair Work, the millennium, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bali, COVID, AUKUS, Ukraine. You've seen how this place has responded to droughts, to floods, to fires and to pandemics, how we've dealt with tragedies, how we've dealt with terrorism and how we've dealt with trauma. You've been here through all of that. You've seen how this chamber has coped with the rise of Twitter and, hopefully, the demise of Twitter too. You have even outlasted the Queen, although perhaps not quite as you might have hoped when you were here during that last referendum. You were our first female defence minister and our Minister for Foreign Affairs. You confronted a challenging geostrategic environment more complicated than our nation has seen since the last world war. When you leave us, you will take from all of us our respect, our admiration and our friendship, and, hopefully, you will leave us with an enormous legacy too: your judgement, your wisdom, your service and, yes, your bravery too.

You have changed lives here in ways that you probably will never know. Let me just give you the smallest of examples. I know other people want to speak, so I will be quick. In my first week in this place, when I walked into that very strange, rather spartan office for the first time, there was a bunch of flowers waiting for me with a card, wishing me luck for my maiden speech. And, sure enough, however many years later it is, last week, when our new senator, Senator Kovacic, did her maiden speech, I made sure that I sent flowers and a card, because I knew how much it meant to me when Marise did that for me.

Sarah Hanson-Young—Senator Hanson-Young, I should say—called you a trailblazer, and that you absolutely are. I wonder whether we are ever really ready for those women that blaze the trail, that widen the path behind them for the women who will come after. It is a very special skill, and it is an extraordinary honour to be one of those women behind you. I do know that future women and future Liberals will not understand the loss that they have been dealt by your retirement today. But I also know that, for those of us who have been the beneficiaries, I expect that we will always feel the loss that you leave with us here.

Senator Payne, thank you so much for your service to your country; to your state, New South Wales, to the Liberal Party; to its values and to its future and particularly for your service to us, your colleagues, who could never be grateful enough. They say you should never meet your heroes. Well, I am so glad that I met mine. Can I just say: allow me to misappropriate the words that you used on the launch of the USS Canberra. Thank you very much, Senator Marise Payne, for manning our ship and bringing her to life.

I'm going to move to my actual seat so I can see you, Senator Payne—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I know something of what you feel, having stood here in 2014 on my own valedictory speech. But I dare say you won't be fighting to come back. I came back in 2016 as a result of Malcolm Turnbull's double dissolution. I don't know if you had any role in advising him to go to that, but I would be grateful. Well I'm grateful for many reasons. But I do know something of that internal contest within our own parties about the issues that we bring to this place—issues such as reproductive rights, gender and sexuality, and other things. So I guess, even though we don't know each other at all well and have never actually worked together, that dialogue in this place that connects various movements is really important.

I was reflecting on remarks that you made in talking about your time with the AIDS Council of New South Wales. It was a time, back in the nineties, when I was an activist in Western Australia on many of the same issues. One of the articles I read said, perhaps quoting you or using your words:

To Marise Payne, liberalism is "the freedom of the individual to live their lives as they see fit whilst respecting in every case the rights of others; developing their own individual potential to the fullest; enjoying the right to be judged on their own individual merit; and, importantly, being respected as an individual."

We have a connection in movements across the chamber. There are bits of the left and bits of the right in which we have significant common ground, and I really want to pay tribute to the role you've played in standing up for these values during your career. For example, I was really proud, as an Australian, of how you represented us in your remarks to the UN Human Rights Council back in 2019. I don't think it's a speech that Kevin Rudd could have given. You spoke of the abolition of the death penalty, ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the protection of LGBTI people, freedom of religion, advancing Indigenous people's rights globally, championing the rights of people with disabilities, promoting gender equality and supporting the role of civil society. You also spoke of how national human rights institutions will continue to be priorities for us for the remainder of our term and beyond.

I do want to speak of the beyond, because you actually have played a key role in establishing those principles for Australia, and I can see the legacy of that going right back to the 1990s. We've seen that play out in really robust debates about reproductive rights, and in the different votes on sexuality and gender in this place. We've both had our internal dialogue and debates within our own parties about that. You and I have both been very disciplined members of our own teams and have always sought to take our respective parties on that journey with that dialogue. I just want to say thank you. Our movements are all the better for your contribution. Thank you, Senator Payne.

When working out how I could possibly summarise Marise Payne in just a few simple minutes, I thought I'd throw away my script and just speak from my heart.

I've known Marise now for 33 years. I did count, I'm sorry Marise, and I can't say we were 10 years old either at the time. I first met Marise as a Young Liberal. The Western Australian delegates had hired a HiAce, and we'd driven across the Nullarbor. We arrived in South Australia, and I first met this amazing woman. I'd been in the Army reserves for a few years already, but I'd never quite met a young woman—she was a year older than me—like Marise. Marise won't remember this, but I will never forget. For me, as a young conservative Liberal—conservative, as in broad church—just seeing this woman who was leading the Young Liberals gave me my first example of what leadership could look like as a Liberal woman. In the military, I didn't have women at that time who I could look up to, because they just simply weren't there. So I was greatly inspired by Marise.

Through the years our paths continued to cross. When I was chief of staff to Chris Ellison, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Marise was making her way, in her own inevitable way, still demonstrating all of those qualities that have been so eloquently mentioned here today. Again, as chief of staff, seeing Marise's passion for service men and women and, in our portfolio, for the men and women in blue—how she stood up in committees and in parliament, particularly during September 11, the Bali bombings and everything else that we had to deal with—my admiration for her only grew.

But it's only in later years, serving with Marise in the Senate as a colleague and also as a friend, that I've truly come to appreciate the legacy that she leaves this place and that I know she will take to wherever she goes next, and that is showing Liberal women that you can support other women, that it is okay to be a conservative woman and that we can lead as women. As people have said here, every day you had that compassion and the commitment—not having to be obsessed over by the press gallery, and sometimes copping criticism for that, but that's okay because you were doing your job, and you were doing it bloody well.

I learned a great deal from you, becoming a minister and then becoming a cabinet minister. At that time, whether we were on one of the many bilaterals and multilaterals we did as foreign minister and defence minister, I learned such a great deal from you—the way that you engaged with your counterparts and your unfailing politeness to officials. As you can see in the acknowledgements here today, you always did your homework. When you speak, everybody stops to listen. I was very fortunate. I was the second behind you in being a female defence minister.

I also want to acknowledge the incredible work that you did first as defence minister and then as foreign minister—the white paper, getting the funding and restoring the confidence of our men and women in uniform in this place and in the executive government, in particular. I came in behind, and I inherited the great work that you did. I was able to implement the Defence Strategic Update and the associated budgets and documents that went with that. But for two years it fell to you and me to travel the world and speak up for Australia's sovereignty and for our regional neighbours who didn't and weren't able to speak up on their own at the time.

I also learned a great deal from you about strength, courage and commitment in all of that, in policy development, on the big things and on the small things. A number of people have acknowledged the work and the passion that you have for Afghanistan and their women. I saw that firsthand. I saw that in your leadership during the evacuation of 4,000 Afghans. I'm glad Senator Farrell acknowledged that, because you and your office—and I know some are here today—did an extraordinary thing. You were basically running the operation out of your office 24/7 and taking calls from all of us, including me. We had people we were desperate to get evacuated, and you had time for each and every one of us. We had 16 members of one family came out here as a result of that who are fine Australians—Khalid Amiri and his family. That story is probably replicated by most of us here in this chamber. So not only did you have the passion, commitment and values for the big things that have changed our nation for the better, but you also never ever forgot each and every person.

In conclusion, there's a lot more I could say, but I think a lot of it has been said. You have changed the course not only for women in the Liberal Party but also for women in Australia, as Michaelia, I think, so wonderfully said. I will never forget that at every cabinet meeting, the Commonwealth boards gender balance—everybody would look to Marise: 'Marise! We're closer to fifty-fifty!' And I'm sure it was one of Marise's proudest moments when we left government that she got, and we got through her, over 50 per cent women on Commonwealth government boards. That was your dogged determination for years—and your ability to scare the bejeebers out of so many of our cabinet colleagues!

On a personal note, Marise, thank you for your friendship and for the unknowing leadership, guidance and support you've given so many. I'm just one of so many. I know that so many women will walk in your shoes. Most of us probably won't be able to fill them; nonetheless, you've trailblazed for us all. On another personal note, thank you for your support of me when I couldn't speak for myself. I'm here because of that, and I'll always be grateful. Godspeed to whatever is next. I know it's going to be even bigger and better. We will miss you.

I am relatively unable to speak of the fabulous achievements of Senator Payne down here, because, until I was joined by Senator Kovacic, I was the new kid on the block. But, unfortunately for Marise, I can talk about our time in the Young Liberal Movement in New South Wales! I was a little conservative country boy—a Hunter boy, let's say—in the Young Liberal Movement, and I came down to Sydney and was instantly intimidated by this very liberal, strong-willed lady who'd come through MLC, Methodist Ladies College, in southern Sydney but, much to my astonishment, could speak fluent bogan with me! She understood too many things for my comfort, and I found a wing for myself. I found a caring arm—I wouldn't say it was loving, but it was certainly a caring arm. I'm starting to feel, People of Australia, that I've cost you the chance of this woman staying on and looking out for you and fighting for you, because every time I go somewhere she leaves! Marise, I remember coming to the central council of the Young Libs in 1993, only for you to leave in 1994. I joined here in 2022, only for you to leave in 2023.

There's always been that heart, but something that's coming through today—and the word hasn't been there—is the authenticity. Many people talk about 'wearing your heart on your sleeve'. I know that figuratively you're wearing hearts everywhere at the moment. It has always been refreshing to see someone that I knew and grew up with. I saw your empathy even with that fashion faux pas when Stuart and all of us went to a Sydney Kings game and I wore the entire Charlotte Hornets outfit, purple from top to bottom. You had the ability to say, 'Potentially, don't wear that again.'

It's always those words. They're very proper, distinct words but there's an anvil behind them. You never offend anyone, but we can hear your strength all of the time. It's a strength that I think has been reflected throughout the world and the region, where some of our relationships may have been a little bit strained because people knew they couldn't push you around. Strength respects strength, and they saw it in you. Australia has been well represented, because to have that strength with a good, loving and caring heart is rare.

I go back to those days with Don and Tony Chappel and Ben and all those guys in the Young Liberal Movement. I go back to meeting in the president of the upper house's room for white-smoke meetings about who would be the next Young Liberal president. There were always the quiet words. You speak very rarely but you speak well. I thank you for the role you've had in making me a better person. I thank you for the role you've had in the Young Libs.

I moved to the Cessnock electorate, and then, just like everything happens, the Liberals stopped contesting Cessnock and left me a year after I did that, so it became a National Party seat. Even the other day I was checking my punting record on my TAB app to make sure the punters of Australia had someone who would represent them in this place, and I think I met the standard for turnover for your thing. On a very selfish note, I can no longer rely on the senator for my excuse to Open Politics for why I accept tickets to Everest and Melbourne Cup festivals: 'because Senator Payne did'. I'll be on my Pat Malone now on that one, but I'll still go, and I'll hold my head up high. I do note the number of horseraces where you've had tips and haven't let me know which one was going to win. I will hold that against you for some time.

The Hunter is not a place that suffers fools and disingenuous people. You have never been that. Western Sydney, Parramatta and Penrith are very much the same. There's that authenticity with the people who've worked with you there. The things you have achieved don't get done by someone who's not real. You have always been real. You have always been honest. You have always been a person I could look up to. I will never be as good as you, but I might be able to steal one little asset or something like that and try to be a better person here for the people of Australia because of the lessons you have taught me. Thank you very much.

I too rise to speak to Senator Payne's valedictory. I know the date on which I met Marise. I can give you an exact date—I can actually give you an exact hour. It was on 20 October 2008. It was Senate estimates of that year. I had just started working for Mathias Cormann and I went along to the 8 am pre-estimates brief for the coalition senators and staff. It was my first estimates brief. I didn't really know what to expect. There was a young woman in the room, and I walked up to her and said: 'I'm Slade Brockman. I work for Mathias Cormann. Who do you work for?' And the answer I got—and I cannot do it justice—was 'Marise Payne—Senator'. Not only can I not do the voice; I cannot add the steel that was in the voice or the steel that was in the eye. But every single one of those opposite and all my colleagues know what I'm talking about.

The thing I want to reflect on briefly relates to my time as President of the Senate. Question time is obviously the time when the President is under a bit of pressure, has a few nerves, has to pay close attention to what's going on. As President, one thing that became clear to me very quickly was that Marise Payne, as a minister, gave a question the answer it deserved. If it was a genuine question, you got a genuine answer. If it was a political question or a trivial question, well, then you were lambasted very clearly, very quickly and very effectively by Senator Payne. If Senator Payne was answering a question—because of the way she answered questions—I knew that for at least a minute or two I could relax a little.

Senator Payne, you will be absolutely missed, and I wish you all the best for whatever the future holds.

I rise to join other senators in making some brief remarks about Senator Payne. I've come to know Senator Marise Payne as a leading woman in the New South Wales Liberal Party. However, as a new senator, most of my interaction with her has been outside of this place, mostly in a place we share a love for, Western Sydney, and in another place that we maybe love a little less, the New South Wales state executive.

Western Sydney is a place that Senator Payne has long been an advocate for. In 2015, when I co-founded Western Sydney Women and we thought about who our inaugural ambassador should be, who could best demonstrate our values and what we wanted to achieve—empowering women across Western Sydney—there was no doubt that that person should be Senator Payne. Senator, I'm very grateful for your support of Western Sydney Women and, later, Western Sydney Executive Women. Your commitment and support made such a significant difference in the work that we did, as it did more broadly throughout the Western Sydney community, New South Wales and our country.

I thank you for your service and contribution in this place and for what we all know will be your ongoing contribution outside of it. Thank you.

I rise to pay tribute to the remarkable Senator the Hon. Marise Payne. I'm sad. Go Cats! I have to say that, in your magnificent valedictory speech, the Cats did not get a mention, so I'm going to make up for that. We have a shared love of the Cats—the Geelong Cats, that is—and I know that that shared love will continue.

Losing Marise means there will be a gaping hole in the Senate. We are not just losing the wisdom, the experience and the fortitude of the longest-serving woman in the history of the Senate; we are also—I don't know why I'm so emotional, but I am. We are losing someone of enormous bravery, and we saw that in spades when she was the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Unless you've walked in those shoes, I don't think Australians understand the level of bravery involved in doing those jobs. You were also brave, Marise, as someone who stood up for Liberal values, often against the tide.

But I say it's very hard to put into words, in the few minutes I have, your legacy, from the very early days as the first woman to be elected as the federal president of the Young Liberal Movement, in 1989, to your incredible ministerial roles: minister for human services, women, foreign affairs and defence. Your bravery was in full flight during some of the most difficult times for our nation, times of considerable international turmoil: the COVID-19 pandemic—who could imagine what it would have been like to be in your shoes, to lead Australia's response through that incredibly difficult time?—the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the settlement of 4,000 Afghans. Just to see the joy of so many Afghans who have been settled here in Australia is quite incredible. In your work reforming Australia's international sanctions regime via the adoption of Magnitsky style sanctions, the quiet, determined, resilient bravery in doing that work cannot be overestimated, nor can the bravery in taking on the Belt and Road agreements, the agreement entered into between the Victorian government and the Chinese Communist Party. The way that you went about introducing the foreign relations scheme, again, was dignified, determined and underpinned by an enormous bravery.

I am so proud of the work of our government, when you were Minister for Women, in delivering in the most incredible amount of investment to stand up for women and children, primarily, impacted by domestic violence. You led the way in your actions, not only in standing up for all Australian women but in everything that you did to inspire women on our side of politics with the belief that anyone who aspires to do so can stand in your shoes and become a member of parliament—that any woman can reach for the stars. I think one of the things that you've done so incredibly well for younger Liberal women is inspire them to say, 'Yes, you can do it.'

The one thing that you did so well in Western Sydney and around the country was to be a dogged campaigner, winning the hearts and minds of communities in Western Sydney and in so many other marginal electorates, including Corangamite. My favourite photo—I was just having a look at it, and I'll post it very shortly—is the photograph of you and me on the formal opening of the Avalon Airport international terminal on 2 December 2018, which was the culmination of a wonderful commitment that we provided to Avalon Airport to build an international terminal. I thank you so much for your support for that wonderful commitment and for everything else that you did for me when I was in Corangamite and for all other members fighting to win hearts and minds around the country.

Marise, you've been an amazing inspiration. You are gong to be very sadly missed. I also want to say you and Stuart are a great team. You're an inspiration to many of us who don't do relationships so well! You are an incredible partnership. To you and Stuart: you will both be dearly missed in the work that you've done as elected representatives in Western Sydney. There will be a gaping hole in Western Sydney as well, but I do know that together you will go on to achieve and do other amazing things, and I have no doubt that you will make the same contribution in the ways that you see fit as you have to the Liberal Party, to the people of New South Wales and to our nation.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything that you've done for me, everything that you've done in this place, everything you've done for Liberal women and everything that you've done for our nation.

Marise, it has been an extreme honour to have spent 11 of your 26 years here with you. It has not been an ordinary 26 years; I think it has certainly been punctuated very regularly with amazing achievements, and many of our colleagues across the chamber have spoken of the amazing achievements in your portfolio areas and in this place.

I wanted to quickly make a couple of reflections on my personal experience in working with you. I had the amazing honour to be your assistant minister for nine months in 2018-2019, when you were the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I was the Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific. It gave me an extraordinary appreciation and love for the Pacific, but it also gave me a taste of what travel looks like for the foreign minister. I cannot imagine what you must have been like at the end of being the foreign minister. You must have gone to sleep for at least a month! Not only do you have to do your day job here in Australia; then you have to spend the rest of the night up talking to the rest of the world, or you're on a plane somewhere.

I suppose the way I would describe my interaction with you is that you're a conviction politician. There was nothing convenient about Marise's views on things. She was entirely consistent. I remember one of your New South Wales colleagues, who will remain nameless, saying to me once: 'If you really are a true politician and a true political believer, you will be consistent in your positions on things. You won't be convenient and jump from here to there because it suits your political purposes; you will hold our values true and you will always be absolutely consistent.' The one thing Marise could never be accused of is being convenient. She's probably got the scars to prove the fact that she often was not convenient but was very consistent.

She is also somebody who will clearly be remembered in this place as truly taking her role as being the supporter and advocate for other women very seriously. There are many that I think perhaps say that they are supporters of women, but Marise genuinely was a supporter of women, and I'm sure she will continue to be a great supporter of Liberal women to make sure that we have a pathway for great women to come into this place. I can assure you that increasing the number of fantastic women that sit in this place is definitely, for my mind, providing a better parliament.

I always accuse my mother of being the keeper of what is now the King's English, but clearly Marise is in contention for that! The one thing that I will always remember about Marise is that she has a very unique way of saying the word 'hilarious'. It's not 'hilarious', it's 'hiLARious'. Now I find myself, every time I say the word 'hilarious', saying 'hiLARious'!

In 26 years you've never lost your humility. This place is pretty combative. This place can be adversarial. Marise has never played the player; she's always played the ball. I think that's why you will leave this place with the absolute respect, admiration and regard of just about every single person in this chamber, no matter where they sit in this place, and I'm sure the same can be said for the other place. To Stuart, Ella and Frankie—if anybody is listening 'up there' and if there is such a thing as reincarnation, I want to come back as Marise's cat—to you both and your two beautiful fur babies, go well in whatever the future holds for you.

I rise to speak on Senator Marise Payne's valedictory. Like Senator Brockman, I can remember when I first met Marise. I don't expect her to remember this, but I was here for an event before I was in parliament, and it was for the launch of a blueprint for Indigenous employment that I had developed with Generation One. You were the shadow minister for Indigenous employment and development—I think that was it at the time—and I had the great pleasure of being seated next to you on a table at a breakfast up in the Mural Hall. I'm not going to make any partisan political statement here tonight, but there was a certain minister who gave a speech—the Labor government was then in charge—and their response to this blueprint that we had delivered, which was to provide economic empowerment for Indigenous people, was met with typical responses that weren't embracing of this program and the idea that we would create employment opportunities for Aboriginal people across the country. I was seated next to you, and we had a little chat, and I was deeply inspired by your encouragement to run with this program that we were wanting to see established across the country. At the time, we were working with Tony Abbott as the opposition leader to get a commitment, and you provided significant encouragement to me to persist with it. At that stage, I had not really considered a career in politics. While I was very interested, having engaged with this place through the work I was doing, I hadn't really considered a career in politics. I had helped out with the Liberal Party at various elections but I wasn't even a member at that stage. I had helped Ken Wyatt hand out how-to-vote cards at numerous elections, but I hadn't considered it. Your encouragement of me to persist with it, and the engagement that I had, actually had a role to play in me making the decision that I was going to come here. I was inspired by you and others I was engaged with at the time that you really can make a difference through good policy, and that if you can enact that then you can really make a difference. The difference that I saw and heard through that brief, 10-minute conversation that we had meant I got to see the difference between the other side and this side in terms of that economic empowerment and how that is really going to make a difference.

Many years later, I find myself here in the Senate. While we haven't had an enormous amount of intersection in relation to policy in my time here, and the committees I have worked on haven't involved you either as a minister or in opposition, one of the things I have always admired about you is your absolute determination and the way that you can pursue the things that you are passionate about in a very graceful way, in a way that is not condescending. There are times when we may have been on opposite sides of the chamber for various conscience votes or other things, but I've never felt judgement. I've never felt any sense from you that you were looking down your nose. At times I feel like a rookie in this place compared to you, but I have always felt so empowered and encouraged by you, Marise.

I want to take the opportunity tonight to say: thank you very much indeed.. You are someone that I greatly admire and someone that I look up to. I very much appreciate you and I wish you and Stuart the absolute very best for your future and whatever it might hold. I thank you not only for myself but also for the contribution you have made to this parliament and, indeed, the nation.

Like my colleagues Senator Brockman and Senator O'Sullivan, I can also remember the first time I met Marise Payne. It was during the 2019 election. We were knocking on doors and doing a few business visits in the little town of Deloraine in Tasmania. I think it's fair to say that the people of Deloraine were quite shocked as to why the Minister for Foreign Affairs was taking a stroll down their street and knocking on business's doors.

A lot has been said about Marise tonight, and I'm sure I wouldn't be surprising colleagues in saying that she's always very well briefed for whatever meeting she might be or whatever candidate she might come across. I, as a little, potential new senator on the Senate ticket in 2019, said to Marise: 'It's such a pleasure to meet you, Senator Payne. Apart from the fact that we're both Liberals and, hopefully, one day we'll be colleagues, we have something in common.' Marise said: 'Yes. We're both former federal Young Liberal presidents.' I said, 'Yes, well, you were the first person to hold that position.' At that point, in 2019, I was the last. It was some years between Marise being a federal Young Liberal president as a woman and myself finding myself in that role. There was only one other woman who had been federal YL president between us. I can remember going to Young Liberal conferences back in the day, and I think it's fair to say that even when I first started out it was still quite male dominated, and you'd come away from each federal conference thinking, 'Gosh, I wonder if we will ever have another woman in charge, given Marise Payne was the last one.' It was a great honour of mine to find myself in that position at some point later on, as well.

I think it shows the change that happens within our political party, but I'm also very cognisant of the change that has happened in the place. Being a member of the class of 2019, I think it's easy for many of the women in this chamber now to take for granted, having been elected at a time when the Senate finally reached fifty-fifty gender representation, there was a point in time when that was not the case. Certainly, when Marise first came to this place it would not have been anywhere near the case. The change in culture and the change in the way we operate within this parliament and within the Liberal Party changes for the better when we get more women involved. That is something Marise and I have always agreed on. I'm very grateful to you, Marise, for the trail you have blazed both within the Liberal Party and within this chamber.

Just quickly, it was such a pleasure to work with you on the committee in this parliament that sought to establish codes of conduct that will govern the way that we all act in this building—not just us parliamentarians but staff and members of the public as well. That was a tough piece of work and an important piece of work, and it was really inspirational to work alongside you on that committee to achieve that outcome.

In the remaining time that I am standing here this evening, I did want to touch on some of the substantial contributions that Marise made during her tenure as Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was during Marise's term, as has been referenced previously, that the Australian parliament passed legislation to enable the establishment of a Magnitsky style sanctions regime. There is no doubt these reforms have provided a greater range of options to sanction individuals and entities responsible for crimes including serious human rights abuses and corruption and malicious cyberactivity both in this parliament and in the last one. That plays a really important role in enabling us to act alongside our security partners and allies to sanction those who are undermining global world order. I really thank Marise for the role that she played in guiding those laws through this place, because if it weren't for those laws, we wouldn't have been able to sanction individuals linked to the Russian regime following the invasion of Ukraine and we wouldn't have been able to sanction individuals within the Iranian regime.

Marise, you were also absolutely resolute in the face of some very aggressive posturing from the Chinese government, especially in the term of the last parliament following the Morrison government's call at the time for an inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus. I know that was an incredibly brave thing for you to do and for us as a government to do. I'm very glad we did that. It was absolutely the right thing to do. All of the work that you put into ensuring we had a strong position on that, has continued to be leveraged by us on the side and across the parliament and the country. Thank you so much for your leadership on that front.

Finally, I hope you and Stuart get to enjoy some well-deserved time together, which I know would have been particularly hard in past years, given the role that you were in and the role that Stuart was in. Please know that, as the curtain closes on your time in this place, you have absolutely made a difference.

A lot of people have commented on all Marise's firsts, and there are lots of them; her achievements are many—many firsts, many achievements. But she is the last person in this chamber to serve across two centuries. And I did meet her in the last century, so, while we're playing that game: I think it was at Federal Council in 1994, when the contest was between Malcolm Fraser and Tony Staley, that I first met Marise. So, we got back a way in the organisation. The point there is that Marise is truly someone of the Liberal Party. I looked at her first speech, and she quoted Menzies, as so many of us do—about the broad church, and what the Liberal Party is all about. And she's lived that for her entire time.

But something else that I also really liked from her first speech was her quote from Senator Annabelle Rankin, about 'lifting your eyes above the mist'. That's something you have to do in this job. Marise obviously had a very strong local focus with Western Sydney, but sometimes she had to lift her eyes to New South Wales and sometime she had to lift her eyes nationally, and then she had to lift her eyes globally. And she did that with such great aplomb.

I have to say, I was so delighted when Marise achieved the appointment as first defence minister. It really did please me to see that occur. I remember sending her a text when she stood in front of that green wall at the UN, and I was so proud to see Marise there in that place, representing our country. It's just one of those moments. You see so many people making a presentation in front of that green wall. Not many of us get the chance to do it. But I was very proud to see Marise do that.

Senator Farrell talked about the work Marise did in assisting people, and she herself talked about the number of people we got out of Afghanistan—a whole range of different people who needed to be moved. I still have on my phone the photographs of two disabled athletes that I sent to Marise one Saturday night while I was at dinner. A few hours later I sent the photograph of those same two disabled athletes on the aircraft flying out of Afghanistan. They were outside the gates when I sent the first photograph; they were inside the plane, leaving, in the second photograph. And they made it to the Paralympics. There were so many people you've helped—it's quite extraordinary.

Also, doing the hard stuff in the hard times: we talked about that time of moving people out of Afghanistan. It was in the middle of a bloody pandemic. I too remember the work that went on during that time, and Marise and the detail in her briefings about who needed what vaccines in what country, and where we should send them and how we should send them, and making sure they got there so we could help our neighbours in the region to also get through the pandemic. It was the toughest time for so many of us, but Marise was there dealing with all of that and making sure we were doing our bit in the region, which is what we promised to do. And through Marise's efforts—and the efforts of her team, I have to say—we made sure it was done. I had a few late-night meetings myself in one of my portfolios, as a member of the WADA board. One thing you would notice as you left the ministerial wing late at night was the doors that were open and the doors that were closed, and Marise's door was nearly always open—and not just open because there was someone there; they were open for business. A couple have already commented on that, but that's the work and the job. I have to say that the fact that, because Marise didn't play the game that some in the gallery wanted, she was treated so shamefully is a disgrace. Others might have tempered their language, but I'm not going to. I don't think it was fair. We all know, because we were there and saw what was happening, and it's just not right that, just because you don't play the game the way some want to play it, they'll turn on you. It shouldn't occur. So, Stuart, enjoy your time at the races. I'm sure you will.

I had the pleasure of working with Stuart as sports minister. The first thing Marise said to me at Government House after the 2019 election was: 'Guess what we get to do together? Sports diplomacy!' We did that during a pandemic, in the Pacific. But it was a lot of fun and, as so many have said, we made a difference. You gave so much, and I'm sure you'll keep on giving and that there are things to do, but we really do appreciate it. It's sad to see you go, but we wish you all the very best.

I have a message from someone from your Young Liberal career. They're a colleague from Tassie. 'If there was ever a person who could reflect on a political career with great pride, it would be Marise Payne. I well remember first meeting Marise in the very early 1990s in Young Liberal circles, when I recall being immensely impressed by her articulate, driven and compassionate nature as I witnessed her often vigorous and passionate participation in policy debates. Marise and I share similar values that reinforced to me her dedication and advocacy for the philosophical values that truly reflect the Liberal Party. More than 30 years later, I'm delighted to still call Marise a good friend and to acknowledge her service representing the people of New South Wales as a senator and as a minister in Liberal governments across the last decade—a distinguished career of achievement to be celebrated and thankful for. My very best wishes to Marise in her future endeavours.' That's from Jeremy Rockliff, the Premier of Tasmania.

I first met Marise, similarly to Jeremy, in 1990 in Brisbane at a Young Liberal national convention. As with everyone who met Marise at that stage, I was immediately impressed with Marise's intelligence, empathy, gravitas and basic humanity. I can remember saying a few things at that convention which were perhaps out of keeping with what was in federal Liberal Party policy at the time, which generated some interest amongst journalists. Marise handled it beautifully, stood behind the movement and stood behind us as Young Liberals. The point I want to make in that regard was that Marise was a leader and such a great example to so many of us before she even came to this place.

There are three reflections, Marise, on your service in this place. The first is this: I can remember, as a backbencher sitting on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, when you would turn up at estimates in your capacity as Minister for Women, and you were absolutely formidable. I could see that the members of the department who would sit by your side were proud to be sitting at the table with you as their minister. As a backbencher, I was so proud to have you as a cabinet minister.

On Pacific women, as someone who has lived and worked in Papua New Guinea and cares deeply about the Pacific, I know that you gave your heart and soul to the cause of women and girls across our Pacific region in terms of their security, safety, education and future ability to take positions of leadership across the Pacific, and I acknowledge that deeply.

The last reflection has brought back many, many memories of Afghanistan. As someone who worked very closely with your office—in particular, with the incredible Chris McNicoll—over many weeks, this was just outstanding. There is a place in Afghanistan that I had never heard of, but which I will never forget. It's called the Torkham border. After the airlift had ceased and we were so desperate to keep getting people out of Afghanistan, with assistance out of your office, with Chris' amazing assistance, we saved so many people across that border. One person who we saved was baby Solomon. In one of the families which got across the border, baby Solomon's mother gave birth to baby Solomon in Pakistan just a few days after they crossed the border. Baby Solomon is now safe and growing up in Queensland. Baby Solomon and his family, and so many people, should be so thankful, Marise, for the tremendous service you have given to this country, to its people and to people across our whole region. Thank you.

I don't recall when I first met Marise Payne, but I do know one thing: it wasn't in the 1990s, because I was in high school at the time. But enough on that!

People like this don't come along very often, and it has been an absolute privilege and honour to serve with Marise in this place. Aside from the obvious and objective metrics of success that hang around Marise—one is seniority through the ministerial and leadership roles she has had in this place, but there's also her longevity—there are other characteristics that are less tangible. Some have been mentioned, like the achievements of your time as a minister.

God knows that there are some people that come into this place, sit here for a long time and look back and wonder what they've actually done. You aren't one of those—absolutely not! We've heard a number of contributions today that pointed out a number of those. But the respect with which you are regarded, the way people work with you and the deference which is shown to you when people are dealing with you, are things that you have earned, not just by being here a long time but because of who you are and what you've done. And that respect is not just across this chamber and this parliament—and over successive parliaments—but globally too. The leader mentioned before the international leaders who have expressed their good wishes upon your retirement from this place.

Also, most importantly in terms of respect, there are a couple of Albanian expats who certainly learned to respect you after they put you through your paces at a Queensland fundraiser. The fact that they respected you meant I certainly had to respect you. For those who are wondering, I'm talking about my in-laws—and anyone who knows them knows that they mean business! It's very easy to see why people do respect Marise Payne for what she has done. When you see her at work, up close and personal—whether it's her commitment to justice for women, which we have heard burns bright in her still, or her passion for the community of Western Sydney—everything mattered. Everything she did and said mattered. For me, as someone who has only been here for six or so years now, that's one thing that stood out. People who serve for an extended period of time can be forgiven for losing the fire in the belly—the passion for what it was they came here to do. But 26 years on, that flame burns bright; the seriousness and the commitment you've had remains there.

It was clear to see: the passion, not just for Western Sydney or New South Wales but for Australia and its place on the world stage. That was so critically important, and you discharged your duties there so wonderfully. It certainly gives me something to look up to and to be inspired by. I don't know how long I will be here for; I doubt it will be for 26 years. I suspect the preselectors of Tasmania will be very sick of me by then! While there has probably not been a conscience vote in this Senate where you and I sat on the same side of the chamber, I do count you as a dear friend, someone who I trust and whose judgement I respect. I look forward to working with you after you leave this place.

I will quote from a Labor woman, as a matter of fact, in reflecting on my views about Marise Payne. That Labor woman is my grandmother, who was a Labor candidate for the upper house in the seat of West Devon in the 1970s in Tasmania.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Not everyone's perfect—I take that interjection! But things are forgiven over generations. Her comments were, 'Deeds, not words.' And I say to Marise Payne: her deeds are something she will be judged very well for: for the legacy she leaves, for the changes she's made for women, for our international placing as a country, for her community of Western Sydney—the list goes on, but you, being judged on your deeds, will be respected and regarded so well into the future not just by Liberals but by Australians more broadly.

And, while you are a serious contributor and not to be fooled with or mistaken for a staffer—woe betide the individual that does that!—you weren't allergic to a laugh, that's for sure. The one thing you can be guaranteed, Marise, is that those jokes remain in the chamber of secrets here! And, while you might be on a bus out of town, you will remain a very close friend for me and someone I will go to for advice in the future. I wish you all the best and look forward to seeing what comes next.

I just wanted to take the opportunity as a Senator from New South Wales to acknowledge the contribution that you've made, Senator Payne, to the civic life of this nation. As two Westies, sometimes we do not quite sound like we come from the west—perhaps the benefits of an education and the wonderful opportunities that life in politics has provided for us to meet with amazing people who have continued the education that's part of the job that we do.

My husband only knew a couple of politicians before he ended up finding me on that path. He sold a raffle ticket to Gough Whitlam. That was a very big interaction for him. But his family knew your family at St Johns Park at the bowling club. He sent me off to the Senate and he said, 'Make sure you say hello to Marise Payne; we used to know each other when we were kids.' These are the interesting things about the lives of politicians: the connections that we have that people have no idea about. But I do know what it means to be somebody who grew up in Sydney in the west at the time that you did, and what a long journey it is from where you commenced to where you have found yourself today, clearly with great regard from your colleagues. Sorry I wasn't here for much of the valedictory and I didn't get to hear all the contributions, but I will commit to reading them because it's important that we never lose sight of the people who are behind the jobs that we do here.

I looked at your first speech. 'A child from a non-political background' you described yourself, 'my aberrant and obsessional political behaviour often bemused my parents and sibling.' You spoke about your mother and brother being present and you spoke about your father, a World War II veteran, and his advice to you. I don't mean to belittle your father, but he said it's often remarked that it's difficult to make true friends and politics, but I would say from the valedictories this evening that you might have actually, over time, proven him wrong in that regard. Clearly he made you a strong woman, along with the guidance you got from your mother and from the relationships you formed, and you bought some incredible integrity to the role that you have fulfilled here in the parliament.

I want to give you my word about a task that you set yourself in the first speech and put on the record. You said:

It is also my fervent hope that the view to the future includes an Australian head of state. The debate on constitutional change should proceed in a constructive and enlightened manner, with young Australians as very active participants in that process.

I give you my word that I will pick up the baton of that battle and continue that for you in good faith for our nation.

I also had a bit of a look at your parliamentary service. While much is made of the incredible responsibilities that you undertook for our nation with integrity, intelligence and a genuine sense of work, bringing your full self to the task, I really want to congratulate you on your committee work. It is so far down in the scheme of things applauded here in this place, but it is so fundamentally vital to the good work that can be done in this place. It's a long list. You will remember the many meetings, the many readings and the many contests and battles of ideas. Really, that is where we find the recipe for the democracy that we get to serve here. I think it's in the committee work. So I want to congratulate you on your success in high office but particularly to acknowledge your committee work, because I'm sure that was remarkable.

There are two more things I want to say. One is that there's so much that you do in the work that you do, and we get to know one another. As they say, familiarity breeds contempt, and we start to call each other by first names, and the monumental impact of the tasks that we undertake is not always present with us. I just think of one very important interaction I had with you, which was about the replenishment for the Global Partnership for Education, with the support of many of the colleagues in this place. I'm going to get you to tell me after this, but it was my sense that our collective efforts inspired you to make that commitment on behalf of the Australian people. That replenishment that you offered in 2022 is continuing to have incredible impact, post your career, in transforming the lives of others in the way that the education opportunities that you and I had transformed our lives and the lives of many of the people we grew up with in the western suburbs.

In closing, I congratulate you on your excellent choice of a final quote for your speech, from the great Australian writer Patrick White, who captures the colour, language and spirit of this nation like no other Australian novelist. You quoted his poem 'Nine Thoughts from Sydney', in which he poses a question:

Where is the politician who will flower like the leptospermum citrata,

Who will sound like the surf out of the Antarctic,

Who has in his hands the knots of coolabah,

And in his soul the tears of migrants landing from Piraeus?

I think you've captured lots of tears not just tonight but in the journey of the heart that has been part of the work that you do. I just want to congratulate you and acknowledge you and all of those of you who similarly chose the Liberal Party. I can't help you with that, but nonetheless I want to say thank you for the support you've offered to Marise, and thank you for the forgiveness that you've given on the many occasions when I'm sure you weren't there for things that people wanted to have you at. Thank you for your service to the nation, and thank you for your service to New South Wales.

The evening is getting on. I fear the drinks are getting warm and the food is getting cold, and I don't want to detain people any further from that. But I did just want to make a short contribution in recognition of our friend and colleague Senator Payne for her outstanding service to the parliament, to our country and to our party. You are a legend of the Liberal Party, you are a legend of the Senate, and you will leave a legacy of which you and your family can be very proud.

I know you won't be offended by me repeating something I've said once before about us, which is that, if you lined up the Liberal party room from left to right, you would be pretty close to the left end of the spectrum and I'd be pretty close to the right end of the spectrum, but you will not find someone who is a bigger fan of your performance, particularly as foreign minister, than me. It was simply outstanding, and all Australians should be proud of that. It's not often that foreign ministers introduce legislation into this place, yet you did on a number of occasions. They are things which foreign ministers in the future will rely on to safeguard our national interest, our sovereignty and our values.

The Magnitsky legislation was a really significant achievement that I think we will all be proud of and that continues to be used time and time again. Yes, it was a great bipartisan achievement, but that doesn't mean it was easy and that doesn't mean there wasn't any resistance, which Marise knows better than anyone else. If it were easy, someone else would have done it a lot earlier, but you were the one that did that, and it is now being used consistently with our values. So too was the case with the foreign arrangements scheme. The most common feedback I heard from our constituents about that was that they thought that was the case already—shouldn't the federal government be in charge of our foreign policy? Yet it was you as foreign minister who ensured that the federal government had the legal power to ensure that our foreign policy was always consistent between the states and territories. That is something that foreign ministers will rely on in the future to safeguard our country.

It was you who cancelled our extradition treaty with Hong Kong, which didn't take much prompting or much pressure, unlike previous battles over extradition treaties—with which you're very familiar—and that was a very great decision in the national interest and for our values. On a personal level I'm very grateful for the personal support you gave me and Andrew Hastie when we found ourselves being banned from visiting our friends in the People's Republic of China. It was from that moment onward that we very much bonded on those issues. When it comes to national security, foreign policy or defence, I can't think of a single issue on which you and I have disagreed, and I'm very proud of all that you did for our nation in that role. Thank you, Marise.

I'll be very brief, given the time, but I want to associate myself with the worthy remarks being echoed tonight. I want to recognise your courage, Marise. As you mentioned in your non-eulogy before, as the proudest member of the small-l Liberal Party, you found yourself on the opposite side of the chamber to the majority of the rest of us sometimes. That takes a lot of courage, and I greatly respect that. It's also an example I've used a few times since I saw you do that, so people can blame you.

I thank you for the courage you showed as foreign minister, as Senator Paterson has just said. It should be recognised that you, of probably all the foreign ministers over the past decade, were the first to take very substantial—and costly, in a way—actions against the bullying of the Chinese Communist Party. That took a lot of courage. You were doing this long before the coronavirus pandemic, but I think you showed great wisdom and foresight in calling out the need for an independent inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic. Your views were criticised at time, but time has proven that you were absolutely right to do so.

Finally, I want to remark on your efforts for suburban Australia. While I'm a member of the National Party and I proudly live in regional and country Australia, I grew up in the suburbs, and sometimes I think they are missed out a bit, almost as much as the regions. They don't necessarily have the same services and same attention. They get looked down on a bit too. As someone who proudly came from Logan, I feel that. Thank you for all the efforts you made for Western Sydney. May many more senators base themselves in our suburban regions and fight for them as hard as we at the National party do for the regions. All the best for your future. Congratulations on a fantastic career. It has been an honour to serve with you here in the Senate.

Senator Payne, it has all been said. It's late, so I shan't repeat it, except to say I had the honour over a number of years, particularly in the foreign affairs and defence space, to work with you and experience much of what has been said. As a colleague, a serviceman and an Australian, I thank you and your staff. God bless.

That concludes the contributions for Senator Payne's valedictory. Thank you to all the senators who made contributions. More importantly, thank you to you, Senator Payne, for your service.

I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning special purpose aircraft.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Last Sunday, I attended the launch of the Yes23 campaign for the Franklin electorate at Kangaroo Bay. Addressing the launch were the member for Franklin, Julie Collins; Senator McKim; and Palawa elder Uncle Rodney Dillon. Mr Dillon in his speech to the crowd said that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament would be the greatest step Australia would make in his lifetime. Mr Dillon expressed the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and I feel we have an obligation to them not to squander this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

I spoke to a number of people at the launch who have been involved in the 'yes' campaign by making phone calls, knocking on doors and having one-on-one conversations. Hearing about the experiences of these campaigners gave me hope that the 'yes' vote can succeed. What they told me and what I experienced in my own conversations is that simply explaining the facts of the proposal, including showing people the exact words of the proposed constitutional change, is very persuasive towards the 'yes' case. An honest, factual conversation almost every time convinces genuinely undecided voters to vote 'yes', because the facts reveal that the Voice to parliament is a modest proposal and that there is nothing to fear. It's a proposal that will make very little difference, if any, in the lives of non-Indigenous Australians, but it has the potential to make a dramatic, positive difference in the lives of Indigenous Australians.

For the benefit of anyone listening to tonight's debate, let me explain in simple terms what is being proposed and why. This referendum is about two things: recognition and listening. The referendum will give us the opportunity to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and 65,000 years of continuous connection to land in our country's birth certificate, the Australian Constitution. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament will allow us to listen to grassroots solutions to help close the gap and improve the lives of First Nations people. We know from closing the gap reports that the outcomes we are getting, particularly in a wealthy, prosperous country like Australia, are completely unacceptable. By providing First Nations people with a direct line of advice to the Australian parliament and government, we have the chance to achieve better results in areas like health, housing, justice and education.

The Voice is not an idea that the Prime Minister or the government came up with. It's a request from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the largest ever consensus of First Nations people on the way forward in Australia. In fact, the words of the constitutional amendment have been developed by a reference group comprising First Nations people. While the Voice will be enshrined in our Constitution, the detailed design will be legislated by parliament, including those on the other side. The parliament, if it deems necessary, can change the legislation and improve the design over time, but, by being enshrined in the Constitution, the Voice cannot be easily dismantled, which is what Mr Dutton and the 'no' campaign would like.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution is legally sound. As the Solicitor-General's advice states:

The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system.

These are the facts. The best weapon the 'yes' campaign has is having honest conversations.

Sadly, as we've seen from yesterday's front pages in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, the 'no' campaign are not interested in honest conversations. As the article states:

The campaign to sink the Voice has instructed volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to trump arguments used by the Yes camp.

They've been instructed to claim that the Voice would be used to abolish Australia Day and seek financial reparations. 'Don't use the facts' is the sort of instruction that you give when you know the facts are not on your side. It's a shameless, cynical campaign, and it's exactly the strategy that the Leader of the Opposition and many in his party have bought into. Knowing the facts are not on their side means that they know deep down that this change has the potential to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to improve outcomes in health, education, justice and life expectancy. Regardless of the outcome of this referendum, it will be to their eternal shame that the Leader of the Opposition and other 'no' campaigners in this place sought, for their own political purposes, to deny the aspirations of First Nations people for recognition, equality and justice.

The Albanese government made a political calculation that dividing Australia through the Voice referendum would work in their favour. That was confirmed by the Sydney Morning Herald report today that Labor's national secretary briefed Labor MPs this week that they were hoping for the coalition to suffer damage as a result of the Voice referendum.

This strategy of division has never been so clearly encapsulated than by comments from the Albanese-government-appointed adviser Marcia Langton, who said: 'Every time the "no" case raises one of their arguments, if you start pulling it apart you get down to base racism. I'm sorry to say it, but that's where it lands—or just sheer stupidity.' Could you get a more divisive or a more inflammatory statement than calling the reasons to vote no, reasons which are supported by millions of Australians, including many Indigenous Australians, 'racist' and 'stupid'?

The arguments of the 'no' campaign are outlined in the official AEC referendum booklet. The case for voting no outlines that the government's proposal is risky, unknown, divisive and permanent. I was one of those who helped write the 'no' statement, outlining these principles along with many colleagues in this place, including Senator Nampijinpa Price. Clearly, we were right to point out that this Voice proposal is divisive, as demonstrated by Ms Langton's recent insults. We said that Australians should have details of how the Voice would work before the vote, not after it. The 'yes' campaign now claims that it's racism and sheer stupidity for Australians to ask to be told specifically what they're voting to be put into the Constitution before they vote for it. And we said it would be permanent, which is exactly what was intended by the 'yes' campaign. That permanency means that if the referendum succeeds then this tactic of being labelled stupid and racist if you disagree with something that the Voice, or members of the Voice, have said it will be used again and again to bully the Australian public into accepting whatever is demanded. The 'yes' campaign and the Albanese government have, from day one, banked on being able to intimidate Australians into voting yes with all of this rhetoric, along with celebrity appearances and tens of millions of dollars in corporate donations.

This Labor government promised that it would cut the cost of living for all Australians but, as the cost of living skyrockets, the only ones doing better under Labor are major corporations like Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, who are bankrolling the Voice campaign. We've seen time and again Indigenous communities and elders from across Australia telling us that the Voice hasn't been explained or simply won't work or make a difference. In my own state of Tasmania, many Indigenous groups don't support the Voice. We've seen Australians, like my brave colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, and Warren Mundine, speaking out and explaining why the government should not be dividing Australia as it is. In return for offering their voice, the voice the Prime Minister claims doesn't exist unless he wins the referendum, they have been subject to disgraceful levels of vitriol.

From the moment the Prime Minister and the Indigenous affairs minister called a media event with Shaq O'Neill, it was obvious this referendum wasn't going to be about the views of Australians. They brought out Shaq to spin their narrative that the world would think badly of us if we say no to a divisive, elitist and unevidenced push to change our Constitution. The government of Australia has actively sought to enlist the views of foreign celebrities to pressure Australians into changing our Constitution. Then came the Prime Minister, standing next to Alan Joyce, reading out Qantas's trademarked advertising slogan at a media event spruiking the Voice, even as the ACCC was investigating Qantas for selling tickets to flights that didn't exist. At every turn, the 'yes' campaign has used celebrities, corporate funding and insults to make their case. That's divisive, that's elitist and that is disrespectful to all Australians.

There are some events in life that make people reflect on where they were when it happened. I think of the assassination of JFK, the dismissal of the Whitlam government and the closure of Australian borders because of COVID. I remember where I was 22 years ago this week when the planes flew into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC late on September 11, Australian time. And I remember where I was the next day, when Ansett Australia was put into administration.

On the night of 11 September I was at the Holiday Inn at Sydney airport. I was there preparing to lead our members at Qantas in industrial action, something they had not done for a very, very long time. I remember groggily watching the television as I tried to go to sleep—I had to get up pretty early to start that industrial action—and it did not really register with me, when the first plane flew into the World Trade Center, what it would all mean. What it did mean, the very next morning, when I got up at 3 am, was that I realised we could not go ahead with our industrial action and that we would have to call it off. The Australian Services Union members called off their industrial action because, like the world, those airline workers on the front line were shocked. They had to greet people off planes who did not realise what had happened.

On that very same day, 12 September, the owners of Ansett Australia put the company into administration. I flew back to Melbourne airport, my home base, to be greeted by a large number of our members. The ASU had 4½ thousand members in the 16½ thousand staff; we had the largest group there. It became very clear that the board had decide the previous weekend to put the airline into administration, intending that it trade out by restructuring. That's what they had intended, but unfortunately, their decision coincided with September 11. They appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as administrators. I have to be clear that it was the first administration I had ever been involved in and, in fact, it was one of Australia's largest administrations. We had to go into action because we had to get proxies from our members—4½ thousand of them—from around Australia. We did not have the sophisticated email systems or the like and the proxies all had to be signed by the various staff creditors, the 4½ thousand of them, and we had to get them within five days. I pay credit to our lawyer at that time, who is now the member for Melbourne, Mr Bandt. It was devastating for people because two days later, on 14 September, as a result of the turmoil across the world following September 11, the administrators made a decision to shut the airline, to stop it from flying. Ansett was owned at that time by Air New Zealand, who in turn were owned by Singapore Airlines. They did what every airline often does and went back to base and decided that Ansett could not be part of their future plans.

It is fair to say the airline industry in 2001 was suffering difficulties. I recall coming to this place to try and get a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, to express our concerns, but of course we were rebuffed. There was no time to talk to workers. We were unimportant.

I could go on and on about the Ansett administration, but I can say that it was devastating for a range of workers. For a short moment there was a buyer, but that buyer, Tesna, dropped out in March 2002, and the last flight by Ansett was on 4 March 2002. Today I wear the badge of a flight attendant from Ansett, who on that night gave me her wings.

It took 10 more years for those workers to be paid out after the collapse of Ansett. They had 14 payments— (Time expired)

I rise, as I have before in this place, to speak of an issue of enormous importance to the agricultural communities and regional areas of WA, and therefore of great importance to our entire state. That, of course, is the proposed ban on live sheep exports. Labor has a long record of putting Australian farmers last, and that's particularly true in Western Australia.

Recently, both the Albanese and the WA Cook governments have demonstrated that this shameful legacy is still alive and well. A few months ago, in June, the panel appointed to investigate how to implement this live sheep export ban completed its consultation process. In doing so, it ignored the loudly voiced, totally legitimate concerns of thousands of people across Western Australia. There were 4,100 submissions, 800 handwritten notes, and town halls packed full of anxious farmers who received the panel during its consultations in towns in the Wheatbelt and Great Southern regions of WA. The WAFarmers Vice President, Steve McGuire, summarised the sentiment that characterised these community consultations when he said that the export ban was 'purely a political decision, not based on science or facts'.

Let me now spell out these facts, the facts that Labor has chosen to ignore. Australian live sheep exports comprise a $92 million industry that employs 3½ thousand people across Australia. More than 80 per cent of those jobs are based on my home state of Western Australia. We are the world's seventh-biggest exporter of live animals and we account for around five per cent of the world's trade. This is a significant sector of our economy by any measure. What we are witnessing here is the wilful dismantling of an industry that provides the livelihoods of thousands of hardworking farmers and their families. As our regions continue to struggle with interest rate migration to cities and the challenges farmers face on an everyday basis, how can we justify legislating additional pain and grief for these Australians? They are battling the cost-of-living crisis in exactly the same way their city counterparts are.

Many of the reasons the Albanese government has laid out for this ban are easily debunked. One justification has been that this is a popular measure, yet one recent large sample size survey found that just 29 per cent of Australians agreed with phasing out live sheep exports, meaning almost 70 per cent don't. Some argue that the practice of live exports is a moral dilemma and there is no alternative but to shut the industry down. Notwithstanding the existence of statutory bodies, such as LiveCorp, which regulate the standards of animal welfare during export, as well as the fact that 99 per cent of sheep exported by sea made it safely to their destination in 2022, it follows a simple logic that if the ban is implemented the global market will fill the gap. The likelihood is that this would involve far reduced animal welfare standards than would ever be acceptable or permitted in Australia.

The Albanese government has failed to listen to farmers, failed to put their livelihoods first and failed to explore more nuanced solutions to this important issue. As I observed earlier, the WA Labor government is no better. Former premier Mark McGowan, his replacement Roger Cook and their relevant ministers have also failed to play their part for regional WA and those who rely on what happens there. These are our farmers, and the state government has turned its back on them. Mark McGowan said he 'could not work miracles' in preventing this ban, while Roger Cook ignored calls to petition for the ban to be overturned at the Labor federal conference held last month. Mark McGowan and Roger Cook think it is too hard to stand up for WA farmers. If WA sheep farmers cannot rely on their Prime Minister or their Premier, who can they rely on?

We must end this conscious disregard for the wellbeing of our farmers and stop what is best described as an ill-informed sleepwalk into this ban. They rightly expect governments to legislate for them too. I implore Labor at all levels to start doing the right thing by regional West Australians, in particular regional farmers and their families.

Senate adjourned at 19:49