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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak to my Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023. With this legislation, I deliver on my commitment to ensure the Australian people benefit from the natural energy and mineral resources they own. I've been fighting for this for many years. Australia has tremendous reserves of natural energy resources, which are some of the largest in the world. Yet we face energy shortages, driving up our energy prices to among the highest in the world. This makes no sense. This natural wealth, which should make every Australian rich, has been squandered by successive Labor and coalition governments over decades, allowing other countries to use our continent as a cheap dirt mine. It is fundamentally wrong any way you look at it. It is a betrayal of the Australian people, incredibly damaging to our economy and makes us an international laughing-stock.

I can only imagine what Norwegians think of Australia's approach. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Norway's sovereign wealth fund, built on revenue from the country's oil deposits in the North Sea, is now valued at A$2.17 trillion. That's almost $400,000 per Norwegian. It's easily twice as much as most Australians' superannuation balances, although that's probably an unfair comparison, because our super comes from our individual earnings. Norwegians contribute nothing personally. All that wealth comes from their natural resources and governments which have wisely created and invested in it.

When I think about the wealth Australia could have generated from natural resources which dwarf Norway's, I get very angry. This criminal waste of our natural wealth is an outrage. It's why I introduced my Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill last year, hoping to generate more revenue for the nation from the exploitation of our resources. The main parties voted against it, faithfully serving their paymasters in the resources sector and continuing the betrayal of the Australian people.

There's been one small step in the right direction recently, and it's something for which I have lobbied the past three prime ministers. On my first meeting with the current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, I pleaded with him with regard to the PRRT in relation to the North West Shelf, and now he's proposed changes to the petroleum resources rent tax, the PRRT, that are forecast to increase revenue by about $2.4 billion, something that we've never had before. In comparison, Qatar reaps $26 billion a year in government revenue from its gas. We export more, yet we only get $2.4 billion, and that's only forecast. It's a positive step, if a very small one, and continues the trend of the major parties adopting many of One Nation's policies. This legislation is another step in the right direction.

Australia has some of the largest reserves of natural gas on the planet, and we're the world's biggest exporter. About 93 per cent of these reserves are in Commonwealth waters, concentrated in the North West Shelf of Western Australia. The majority of it is exported to Asian markets—so much, in fact, that Asian customers pay less for our gas than Australians do. Go figure. A small amount of it is kept in the west thanks to a policy of the Western Australian government to ensure 15 per cent of the gas processed in the state is kept as a domestic reserve, and this has been done for decades. However, this resource is primarily in Commonwealth waters, and my bill seeks to create from this resource a domestic reserve of gas that benefits all of us, not just Western Australia. This national reserve would address looming domestic shortages in this critical energy resource.

Today's Australian Financial Review newspaper reminded readers that the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, warned us back in March that east coast gas exporters may have to break long-term sales contracts with Asian customers to prevent domestic customers running short. They wouldn't have to do it if my bill is passed. We'd have all the gas we'll need. And make no mistake: we'll need it, as Labor and the Greens continue with the suicidal rush to unreliable renewables. Gas is essential to make renewables work. Labor and the Greens won't acknowledge this truth, but the evidence is undeniable. Electricity grids require sustained input that intermittent renewables just cannot provide. Gas is the only available dispatchable backup in many cases, thanks to the premature closure of coal-fired power stations across the country. Forget green hydrogen as a replacement for gas. That's a Green pipedream that does not stack up economically and very likely never will. We're nowhere near having it available to us—not for at least another 20 years. It's all a pie-in-the-sky dream. Now we're going to need gas for a very long time to come, since Labor has decided to have 82 per cent of our energy generated by wind and solar by 2030—pie-in-the-sky stuff. My bill will create that critical reserve of this essential energy resource. It will help stabilise prices and our increasingly fragile and unreliable energy grids.

Petroleum and gas resource companies will make the usual noises about sovereign risk. Their representatives said as much to my office today. But it's a joke. It is a lie. Western Australia has had its domestic gas reserve policy in place since 2006, and investment by resource companies in that state has only increased. The experience overseas puts the lie to the sovereign risk argument too. The foreign-owned multinationals who whine about sovereign risk in Australia have no problem operating in countries like Norway. They have no problem operating in Qatar, as I said, which generates $26 billion a year in revenue from natural gas exports, compared to the $200 million or $300 million generated in Australia; that's all we were getting. They have been so used to getting their way with the major parties, so, of course, they're going to complain.

My bill will amend section 95 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to include references to a condition that petroleum and gas producers must enter into a domestic reserve agreement with the Commonwealth. The substantial amendment is the introduction of a new section, 162A. This new section provides: that licencees will have 12 months to enter into a domestic reserve agreement from 1 January next year if this licence was or is generated before then; that licencees will have 12 months to enter an agreement from the day the licence is granted if this happens after 1 January next year; that for each year the agreement or licence operates, the licencee reserves an amount of petroleum or gas equivalent to 15 per cent of the amount exported by the licencee the previous year; and that such agreements must operate for a minimum 10 years. If the first contract expires but the production licence is still in force, licencees will be required to enter a new agreement.

The really curious thing about this legislation is that it shouldn't be controversial and should enjoy universal support in this parliament. But for the obvious exception of the Greens, who have less economic expertise than your average guinea pig, why would it be controversial for the Australian people to receive any sort of economic benefit from the resources which belong to them? I urge all senators to remember they're not here to represent the interests of foreign-owned multinationals or Asian importers of Australian gas; they're here to represent the interests of the Australian people, and my bill advances their interests.

As a lot of people would say, you'll vote against this. I know your attitude—because One Nation puts up these bills, you won't support them. A lot of it is common sense and it's for the Australian people. I'm urging you to really think about this. We have a shortage of gas. We export around $4 a gigajoule for gas to overseas countries while Australians here have paid up to $28 a gigajoule for gas. Do you really believe that's fair on Australian people? With this bill, we'll ensure that we do have a gas supply. We have enormous reserves and we should be utilising them to ensure that households, those mums and dads, aged pensioners, have a supply of energy for our needs in this country. We have manufacturing industries that will go under.

If you look at it realistically, your renewables will not work. They can't stand up. In South Australia, they rely on gas because the wind doesn't always blow and the solar panels don't work at night; you have to have another supply. The dream of having green hydrogen—it's not possible. There's nowhere in the world where it works. You're only lying to the Australian people by saying, 'We're going to have this.' It's all pie-in-the-sky. You're cheating the Australian people. You're lying to the Australian people. You're lying about the environment and saying that the world is coming to an end if we go up half a per cent or we're going to have temperature rises, which are all lies.

What I'm saying here is the Australian people are struggling. Their energy costs are going through the roof. People are losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages due to rising costs, and this all comes down to energy. Like I explained, Norway has a tremendous wealth fund gained from their resources, and we have been so stupid in this country; we haven't done it. We've had governments or members of parliament who have never had long-term vision, as our politicians did a century ago. They're here just for your term, and all they want to do is make sure that they make the right decisions to win their seats back again. But they're not making the right long-term decisions for this nation and it's a shame because it is the Australian people who are missing out.

This is a great opportunity that we have to actually recover from our resources some money that we can put to good use. We're struggling with hospitals—in rural and regional areas hospitals are closing down—schools and infrastructure. The roads are an absolute blasted mess. There's so much waste of government money, and you're scratching around and you're bringing in a productivity commissioner who's talking about a heritage tax—that's a death duty or tax—raising the GST, having more taxes on the Australian people and hitting independent retirees and looking at possibly including the family home in assets for the aged pension. All you think about is taxing the Australian people all the time.

You're not thinking. Use your brains. Politicians have to problem solve, and a lot of you have no background or experience in business and in running a business. You wouldn't have a clue. You're absolutely brain dead when it comes to things like this where you can make money for this country. You know how to bloody spend it, but you have no idea how to make it. For years in this place I have been begging former prime ministers about what to do with the PRRT. Finally we've got it, and guess what? It's $2.4 billion, and we'll possibly end up with more than that, because you've actually listened to what I've had to say.

Start listening to the grassroots. Start caring about the grassroots Australian people. Start making them some money instead of spending it all the time. As far as I'm concerned it's an absolute bloody waste. Start learning how to make money. This would be a good start.

The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023 proposes to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act to impose a new obligation which would apply to petroleum companies operating in Commonwealth waters and would reserve 15 per cent of produced gas in any given year for the domestic market. That sounds reasonable on the face of it, but this bill would actually have no material effect on the supply of domestic gas. Unlike the opposition and One Nation, the Australian government has proposed real solutions to address gas supply. Passing this bill would involve tearing up a whole series of longstanding export contracts with key regional partners, such as Japan and South Korea—places that rely on our gas for their energy security.

So you care less about the Australian people than about—

I sat here for 15 minutes and listened intently to what Senator Hanson had to say. She may want to show the same respect and stop yelling across the chamber.

Don't make stupid statements.

Deputy President, I do object to being called 'stupid' in this chamber by Senator Hanson.

Senator Hanson, please restrain yourself. She actually said 'stupid statements', but, either way, it's disorderly. Senator Hanson, please restrain yourself.

As well as yelling across the chamber, One Nation talks about reserving gas for domestic purposes. The reality is that this bill won't have an impact on the domestic gas supply. It targets the petroleum fields in Commonwealth waters off New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia where there are currently no producing projects, so therefore it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever. I think that's about all we need to say here. This is not a useful bill. It will not do what it purports to do and it will have no material impact whatsoever on the supply of domestic gas in Australia.

I do applaud Senator Hanson for bringing forward the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023. I think it's a very important issue and one that should be looked at again in this country. There is no doubt that we've all come to the conclusion that the Western Australian gas reservation scheme is a much better standard than how we've developed our gas resources in other parts of the country. I make the point upfront that effectively it appears to me that Senator Hanson is seeking to use that as an example here with her bill, which also requires effectively the reservation of up to 15 per cent, just like the Western Australian model. Of course, that already happens for gas, including gas in Commonwealth waters off the Western Australian coast. Western Australia enforce their policy through the fact that that gas almost invariably, with one exception, has to come onshore to the Western Australian coast and therefore this 15 per cent reservation can be applied there.

When I read the bill it was a little unclear to me exactly how Senator Hanson's bill would interface with the Western Australian standard. I realise there's a provision in the bill that would allow the Commonwealth to 'gift', if you like—that's my word, not the bill's word—the 15 per cent to a state jurisdiction, but it's not spelt out whether exactly that would happen in the case of Western Australia or whether it would be left to the discretion of the Commonwealth government. I think that creates a bit of uncertainty.

I also think we need to be very careful in the way we design a reservation scheme. When I was resources minister we signed, for the first time, a memorandum of understanding with a territory government to have a reservation scheme of some kind in regard to the Beetaloo basin. I haven't heard much from the current government about developments on that, but I do hope that, if the Beetaloo basin ever does come into production, the MOU is honoured and we see a cooperative agreement between the Commonwealth and, in this case, a territory jurisdiction to ensure that some portion of that gas is left for Australian uses and that not all of the gas is exported. It is very important to get these settings right, because developing our oil and gas reserves requires billions upon billions of dollars of capital. There is a great risk that, if we were to act in an injudicious way, people wouldn't invest in our country.

I don't quite agree with Senator Hanson that it would be best for us to move to a Norwegian or Middle Eastern model, where the state owned gas or oil companies are developing resources. That traditionally was the way in Norway. Norway's fields are very different to our own. They're very liquid-rich, very lucrative. Basically, a monkey's uncle could drill in those fields and still make money. The Australian oil and gas fields are much riskier, much more difficult. We saw that recently with the failed—or what appears to be failed—investment of Shell in their FPSO, their floating offshore LNG production vessel. It's had huge cost blowouts, and it looks like it will not make them a profit over time.

So there is risk here. If we were, as a government, to make these investments it could be the taxpayer, ultimately, that makes those losses, not an overseas company. I actually think it's better that we allow companies, which have much greater experience and institutional knowledge about developing these resources, to take those risks—that we allow shareholders of those companies to take those risks. They may make money, and, if so, they deserve that reward because they've taken the risk. In a case like Shell's FPSO, which may lose money, at least the taxpayer is not on the hook for that.

What we should do, of course, given that these resources are the Australian people's resources, is to make sure there's a significant return of any profitable investments to the Australian taxpayer. We do that principally through the existing Petroleum Resource Rent Tax arrangements, which have raised a lot of money for Australia over time. There's a lot of controversy about those right now, but over the past decade those arrangements have attracted $200 billion of investment in Australian oil and gas, and that's been of great benefit to the broader Australian economy. There have been lots and lots of jobs and business created by that investment, obviously, as those LNG projects have been built, and now they're really delivering revenue as well. Gas is now our third-biggest export, behind coal and iron ore. It's worth between $70 billion and $80 billion a year. It's very significant for our country. I'm sure that over time it will also lead to higher returns. With the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax being a superprofits type tax, it takes time, given those large investments, for those projects to become profitable and the taxes to be returned to the Australian people.

In saying all of that, I do think we need to look again. It was probably regrettable, in the case of the Queensland LNG investments—which were onshore and wouldn't be captured by this bill, admittedly—that we didn't reserve any of that gas for Australia. All of that effectively was sent offshore. Given the shortages we're seeing on the east coast now, perhaps a different decision should have been taken, principally by the Queensland government—they're their resources, not the Commonwealth's. That's something to reflect upon.

I listened to Senator Grogan's speech to the bill earlier, and I wasn't sure that she was correct about this bill only applying to Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, as I think she said. I didn't see that in the bill myself. I don't think there's any geographic restriction. As I mentioned, WA is already effectively taken care of by its state scheme, so, at best, this bill would probably be inconsequential to those arrangements, and that is where most oil and gas from Commonwealth waters now comes from. The Bass Strait is another area which significant amounts of gas still come from. It's rather dry now, from an oil perspective. However, those fields are already 100 per cent domestic and always have been. They were effectively built and developed to help support the Victorian manufacturing industry and still largely serve Australian needs. This bill, again, would at best be ineffective there. The joint venture there that existed between BHP and Esso would still be easily meeting a 15 per cent reserve requirement and well above that. There aren't significant gas reserves that have been developed in New South Wales. There's one very controversial one in PEP-11, but it could still be many, many years away. Obviously, developments off the coast of Queensland are not going to happen, with the Great Barrier Reef being there. There won't be oil and gas production there.

That leaves the Northern Territory, which does have significant oil and gas reserves to the north. This bill notionally would potentially apply there. I would suggest, though, that, if that's the only area we're targeting, we could probably do something a little bit more targeted than the broad-brush range of this bill, which I think raises the particular risks that I mentioned of deterring and not attracting investment. I would recommend the kind of model that is being developed through the MOU I developed with the Northern Territory. It's something we should probably cooperate with the Northern Territory on, especially with the development of the Middle Arm proposal. We could probably do that on an intergovernmental level without the need for this kind of nationally scoped legislation, which may have inadvertent consequences for areas like Western Australia and Victoria, where there's not really a reservation issue or problem.

I've had some brief discussions with Senator Hanson and realise she has a different view, but I do have some concerns that this bill could have a retrospective impact. I wasn't able to listen to Senator Hanson's entire speech, but, to me, the explanatory memorandum of the bill doesn't rule out the bill potentially applying to existing licences. The explanatory memorandum says:

If the Bill passed into law petroleum production licensees would be given 12 months to enter into a domestic reserve agreement with the Commonwealth for 15% of their exports and satisfy the condition of their licence.

To me, that does seem to capture existing licences, because they'd have 12 months—it says people with production licences would have 12 months to enter such agreements. I don't support any retrospective treatment of fields that are already producing. Those investors have come here with certain rules of the game, which did not include a reserve requirement. They've spent billions upon billions of dollars. I will give the example, which is the one exception I mentioned earlier, of the Ichthys field, off the coast of Western Australia. That gas does not come onto the shore of Western Australia; it goes into Darwin. It was developed primarily by a Japanese company, INPEX. That doesn't get the WA 15 per cent treatment. The project was roughly $40 billion of expenditure as a whole. It's the biggest Japanese investment in history outside of Japan. I really don't like the idea of governments after the fact—after attracting that investment and after laying out the rules of the game for those investors—coming along and saying, 'Hey, we're going to change the rules now, and we want a bit of that production that we otherwise signed off for you to have.' I think that's just wrong. It's ethically wrong to act in such a way. It's duplicitous, if nothing else, and, as usual, duplicity has perverse outcomes. Going forward, people would be less attracted to come to this country and invest in our nation if we were to include such requirements.

I would suggest to Senator Hanson and other senators that maybe this sort of issue needs to go to a committee of some kind to look more deeply into these issues and make sure things like that are properly captured in any particular legislation that comes before this place. I do want to see further action here. Putting aside questions around how much oil and gas should stay in this country, the broader question is: are we going to develop oil and gas at all? We've actually got to get that first.

I was a little concerned yesterday when Senator Pocock asked an excellent question in question time about the fact that most of us would have noticed when we drive past the petrol station that they're all above $2 now. Some people are seeing $2.30 or $2.40 for diesel. I don't know how people are affording to pay to fill up their tanks. It'd be well over $100 for almost everybody. If you have a big car, it'd be over 200 bucks. It's crushing people. In response to that question, all the minister could talk about was electric cars. I checked this morning because I thought it was a bit strange. The cheapest electric car in this country is the Chinese-made BYD Dolphin, and it costs $38,000. How is a family who can't afford 100 bucks to fill up their tank going to afford a $38,000 car? That's the government's solution right now. You're struggling to pay for petrol? Go buy an electric car. It's ridiculous.

It shows how out of touch these people are. They don't understand average Australian families. They're already struggling to keep their home. They're up to their eyeballs in debt already. They can't go get another loan or another lease for a $38,000 car. This is absurd. That's the cheapest. That's the entry-level electric car.

Yes, and a battery that catches fire.

Don't get me started on that, Senator Hanson; I've only got three minutes left! But I'll quickly detour and say the other problem is that these electric cars don't even help the environment. They create 70 per cent more carbon emissions than the construction of an internal combustion vehicle. Yes, over time, potentially they can become carbon neutral or carbon positive, but in our electricity system, being coal dominated, it would take an average Australian eight years to become carbon neutral—and then the battery would conk after that and you'd have to go get a new battery and start the process all over again. This is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't help the environment, but, more to the point, my major issue for Australians is that it doesn't help them with the cost of living.

The reason why your petrol prices are going up is because the rest of the developed world has taken a leave pass on developing their own energy resources. We now have given the control of our energy prices to the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Russia, and they are determining the world price. Over the past few months, they have pulled back on their production and—surprise, surprise—global oil prices are back over $90 a barrel, with some suggesting they will get back over the $100-a-barrel level. That's why you're paying more for petrol. As long as we do not develop our own resources, we will be dependent on others. As long as we do not encourage oil and gas production in this country, we will pay more for petrol because the other petrol produces, like Saudi Arabia and Russia, like the prices being high because they're massive exporters of oil and gas, and they will keep those prices high if we let them.

Once again, I applaud Senator Hanson for what she's brought forward here today, but the bigger issue is: are we going to gift our energy dependence to authoritarian regimes when we have so many resources here in this country ourselves? There is no reason we cannot become self-sufficient in oil and gas again. Just 20 years ago, we were. We had the Bass Strait going gangbusters. Senator Hanson is exactly right about the oil and gas resources in this country; there are enormous reserves. But we need to encourage people to invest in it. We need to support those businesses who risk billions of dollars of capital to do so. It would be nice to hear the government in their response to this bill say they do support oil and gas jobs, they do want to see Australia become energy-independent again and aren't going to obsessively put all our eggs in one basket and rely on Australians having to spend thousands of dollars on foreign-made electric cars.

I stand to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023. It's maybe not that often that Senator Hanson and I agree, but, when it comes to the need for Australians to get a fair deal on how our gas is used, I support this. This has been a failure of the major parties for decades, allowing our resources to be shipped overseas and not benefit Australians to the extent that they should. There are many examples of countries that have done this better than Australia. Take Norway, for example. It is sitting on a $1.9 trillion sovereign wealth fund. That's because they recognise these are our resources and that we should use them to set ourselves up and to set our children up for the future. That's not the path that the major parties have taken in Australia, and it's no surprise that the Independents and minor parties, who rely on being connected to the people they represent, are pushing this parliament to change our ways.

The gas industry has been incredibly successful in convincing Australians that we need more gas. That is wrong; we need to make sure that Australians get a fair deal for the huge amount of gas that we have. At the moment, we're exporting about 70 per cent of our gas and we use about 10 per cent of our gas just to liquefy the 70 per cent that we then export. We export 25 times more gas than is used in all Australian homes and yet Australian households are paying international prices to use our own gas—to use Australian gas. They're getting price gouged because there hasn't been a government from the coalition or Labor that had the foresight or the courage to actually do something about this.

Not only are we paying international prices but we're getting dudded on the return from the sale of these valuable resources. Once we dig coal, oil or gas up, or get them out of the ground and ship them off, they're gone. That's it. We should be getting more for them. Last year, LNG exporter earnings nearly doubled to an eye-watering $93 billion in just one year. That's nearly double the amount we spend on defence just in earnings from exported gas. Obviously, this translates to record profits: windfall profits topped $40 billion last year alone. That's about four times as much as the federal government spends on all government schools across the country. And that's just in extra profits for already profitable companies.

With that huge increase in the revenue and profitability of gas companies, it's safe to assume that significantly more resource rent tax is paid. Wrong again! Offshore energy producers have not paid a single cent in in the petroleum resource rent tax, ever—not a single cent! That's deeply embarrassing for a country that exports so much LNG. The weak—and I would say 'cowardly'—change to the PRRT which has been proposed by the government is not going to solve this problem. It will simply bring forward what offshore LNG will pay in PRRT for our own gas. We have a government that wouldn't even go with what their own Treasury suggested! They picked the weak option: 'Let's not upset the gas cartels, the ones who are making windfall profits off a war that no-one planned for. This wasn't in their investment plans, but let's be nice to them. We don't want to upset things.' This failure to get Australians a fair share from our resources is unjustifiable in the light of the current cost-of-living crisis. The costs of housing, energy and groceries are all skyrocketing and it's not good enough to say, 'We can't help with the cost-of-living crisis,' while allowing gas companies to make record profits.

On housing: according to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, we need $290 billion over the next 20 years to build an additional 800,000 social and affordable homes across the country. On energy: Rewiring Australia tells us that $12.5 billion would electrify Australian homes so that every household would save over $5, 000 a year on their energy bills.

On biodiversity: our leading ecologists tell us that to actually end extinctions, to halt extinctions, as the Labor government has pledged and promised to us to do, we need to invest nearly $2 billion a year, if we are to ensure that the schoolchildren who come through this place have the opportunity to see things like a greater glider or koala in the wild, a bettong, a quoll—unique Australian wildlife. We are not spending that much, because we have a government that cries poor, that says, 'Oh, the budget is so tight; we've got debt.' At the same time, they are not willing to listen to their own Treasury about how to raise more income from our own gas being shipped off overseas. Australians have some of the highest income taxes in the developed world. Tax experts are telling us that we need to diversify our tax base if we are to continue to invest in things like health care, education and the NDIS.

Australia has a huge quantity of gas, more than enough to meet the needs of Australian households, businesses and industry that rely on it, and we have more than enough to meet the needs of our transition. Now is the time to make sure that Australians are prioritised ahead of the vested interest of large and largely foreign-owned gas companies.

Yesterday I helped launch the climate of the nation report, a survey of over 2,000 Australians across the country. It shows just how out of touch the major parties are when it comes to climate. Seventy-five per cent of Australians are concerned climate change will result in more expensive insurance premiums. They are right; they're seeing them. We are seeing insurance premiums across the country go up. Particularly in places like Queensland, we're seeing them skyrocket, and households are having to find a way to pay for that. Yesterday I met with a former mayor and businessman from Lismore who was talking about the fallout from the flooding in Lismore and just how difficult it was to get your insurance company to pay. But going forward, there are now large areas that are uninsurable.

Seventy-five per cent of Australians are concerned about climate related disruptions to supply chains making it hard to buy necessities. If you turn on the news, you will see climate disasters around the world. That has an effect on agriculture, on manufacturing, on the food and goods that Australians use and consume. Australians are concerned climate change will result in droughts and floods affecting crop production and food supply, and more bushfires. Someone like Minister Watt would know more than many of us about these risks, having talked to farmers, having seen what's happening in disaster readiness in the country. This is an enormous challenge for us. It's going to take more investment from the government. It is going to take a co-ordinated response to protect Australians and that takes money. We have an opportunity here to raise money from largely foreign-owned gas companies exporting our gas. I would urge the government to have the courage to take them on.

Seventy-eight per cent of Australians agree climate policy should be based on best-practice climate science. Seventy-four per cent of Australians aged between 18 and 24 support the government stopping the approvals of new gas, coal and oil projects. Again, we've been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel companies that are aided by the major party politicians, who roll out their talking points about the need to expand the fossil fuel industry against the advice of climate scientists, against the advice of the International Energy Agency and against the common sense of seeing the effects of climate change and knowing that we are in a very deep hole. When you are deep in a hole, you stop digging. We have a government that wants to continue to dig. The consequences of that are very hard to think about.

Seventy-four per cent of Australians support the concept of a polluter-pays tax for businesses based on how much they pollute. Again, people know that this is going to cost money. When your home is uninsurable, who are you going to look to? When we have whole towns flooded or burnt by bushfires the government is going to have to step in. Where does that come from? We have an opportunity to raise funds from the export of our fossil fuels in the transition, yet the major parties don't want to talk about this. They don't want to do it.

Sixty-six per cent of Australians support a windfall profits tax on oil and gas. We've seen this happen across the world. Countries have said: 'You didn't plan for this. These are our resources. We're going to tax your windfall profits and put them into paying down the debt and into climate adaptation.' I note that experts in the adaptation field are saying that Australia needs to be spending in the order of $3 billion to $4 billion a year if we're going to be ready for what is coming. And we have what? A $200 million fund. It doesn't cut it. We need more funding. Yes, funding is tight, but here's where you can get some money to fund the transition and to fund adaptation to climate change that is already locked in.

Seventy-six per cent of Australians agree that climate impacts should be considered by the environment minister when approving fossil fuel projects. It's laughable that we don't do this. I've introduced a duty of care bill that will ensure that the environment minister, those with delegated responsibility and those in other portfolios that oversee fossil fuel projects have to consider the impact on young people and future generations. We must be looking after young people. We must be making longer term decisions, not the short-term thinking that's all about how the major party gets re-elected at the next election.

Fifty-six per cent of Australians say that opening new gas, coal and oil projects will make it harder for Australia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. We know this. We're already off track and yet we continue to expand the fossil fuel industry and continue to cut down native forests for woodchips, paper pulp and box liners—and this is at a loss. We're subsidising the destruction of forests that are valuable carbon sinks.

Three times as many Australians think fossil fuel companies should pay the cost of responding to climate change than think the burden should be borne by those facing climate change impacts. That makes sense to me. Seventy-two per cent of Australians think that government agencies should not employ individuals who are also employed by companies and organisations that could be affected by their advice. Sixty-six per cent think that governments should be responsible for checking the accuracy of net zero and carbon zero claims of companies.

Really importantly, we see the effect of lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel companies. Australians overestimate coal industry employment as a proportion of total employment by a factor of 33—people think there are 33 times more people employed by the coal industry than there actually are—and it's worse when it comes to gas. They think it's 69 times more. This comes down to advertising, to lobbying and to the major parties who just read off the hymn sheet of the fossil fuel companies.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023. Everyone deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace. All parties, parliamentarians and staff have a role in improving the parliament's culture. There have been challenges in our workplace, but the legislation before us marks the effort that is being put in to address the challenges.

The coalition take these changes very seriously. It's why we have accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Foster review, including an independent complaint mechanism, workplace training and improved independent support services. It was the former coalition government that established the current Parliamentary Workplace Support Service following the Foster review. These have been concrete changes that have made our workplaces more safe and respectful even before the work to implement the Jenkins review commenced, and we remain committed, as the former government was when it accepted the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all 28 recommendations. The coalition has always sought to find consensus and bipartisanship on the changes to our workplaces. We believe that this building and other Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, such as the hundreds of electorate offices and Commonwealth parliamentary offices around the country, are workplaces that are in the shared custody of all parties and parliamentarians.

The work to implement these changes is being led by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, which represents parties and parliamentarians from across the parliament. I would like to thank all the members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, particularly the senators with whom I serve and the other coalition members: Senator Davey and the member for Farrer. I would also like to thank the PLT independent chairs—the former chair, Kerri Hartland, and the current chair, Dr Vivienne Thom—for their work. We are all ably supported by Tegan Johnson and Simon Arnold in the secretariat. Thank you for your continued support on the implementation of these important changes.

The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service that was created under the former government as a result of the Foster review represented the most significant change to our workplace in decades. That service was created to be bespoke to our workplaces. It is confidential, it's independent, it's trusted and it's placed right inside this building. The last thing a person in crisis needs is more bureaucracy. It's taken a no-wrong-door approach to those within our workplaces, who—some in their most vulnerable moments—can speak to a single service and get whatever care and assistance they need. Equally, the body has looked to apply independent due process to the matters that it handles, because everyone should be afforded a process that is trusted and fair.

Many people are to thank for the work undertaken to establish this body and to ensure its success. However, a particular tribute should be paid to the first head of the PWSS, Meg Brighton, who as its first head worked very hard to make sure that it was appropriately staffed, with trauma informed experts, and treated staff and parliamentarians with care and respect. It's a testament to the body that the service has proven itself to the extent that this bill before us will carry on the name of that body. It will be a test of the new body and, of course, of the new CEO that this trust that has been built is treated with respect and continues to be cultivated by the attitude and the approach that it takes.

The legislation before the House responds to recommendation 11 of the Set the standard report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, known colloquially as the Jenkins review. The Jenkins review recommended that the Australian government should establish an Office of Parliamentarian Staffing and Culture within 12 months to provide parliamentarians and to Members of Parliament (Staff) Act employees with human resources support that is centralised and accountable to the parliament, with enforcement of standards, and also designed to provide human resources support and administrative functions in the areas of policy development, training, advice, support and education. What's so important about the implementation of this recommendation is that it will allow for another five recommendations to progress after it.

As has been articulated in the House, the legislation comprises eight separate parts. Part 2 of the bill establishes the PWSS and its functions and obligations in relation to reports and actions against parliamentarians for certain noncompliance. These functions include human resources; support; complaint resolution; policy development; education and training; reviews; reporting on diversity; culture; and work health and safety. The bills also allow for the creation of policies or training that are mandatory for parliamentarians and staff. These policies and training will be made mandatory by the CEO of the PWSS, but only after the CEO has been given agreement by the advisory board, and they will also be disallowable. This provides for an appropriate balance between the independent powers of the PWSS and the necessary oversight of those powers.

Part 3 establishes the chief executive officer and arrangements for the CEO's appointment, conditions and termination. It's important to note that the independence of the CEO is integral to the operation of the powers and functions of the PWSS. The bill is explicit and clear: no parliamentarian will be able to direct the CEO in their duties. Part 4 outlines arrangements for staff, including consultants. It's important the PWSS be staffed by specialists and experts who can assist our workplace in developing best practice. To this end, it's noted that the PWSS will be able to seek external advice and expertise when it's required. Part 5 establishes the PWSS advisory board and its procedures, including membership and members' terms and conditions. Part 6 establishes the PWSS consultative committee, its functions and membership.

Part 7 outlines information-sharing arrangements, for example, between the PWSS and other Commonwealth entities, and in relation to questioning information from parliamentarians and MOPS Act employees. This is an important measure that will assist in the operation of the PWSS, particularly in seeking information for reviews and reports. Finally, part 8 provides for the making of rules and for regular reviews of this new body. It's important to continually assess how the body is performing in its role to support our workplaces.

The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 provides for some administrative and transitional measures. The first of these is to provide continuity of the current arrangements for the treatment of documents and records of the PWSS. These arrangements exist to support and engender trust and confidentiality in the PWSS and its processes following consultation with staff across the parliament under the former coalition government. The second measure is to remove the determination that established the current PWSS and the final measure will allow for the work of the current PWSS to be transferred to the new body following the closure of the old body.

We note that there has been considerable work undertaken by the government and the minister on these two bills relating to the creation of the PWSS, and I would very much like to thank her for the way that she has engaged with the coalition in developing the legislation. As a result of the ongoing discussions between the coalition and the government, the minister has also circulated three changes in two amendments to the PWSS Bill. The coalition will support these changes, which we have worked with the government to make, in the interests of continued bipartisanship on these matters. The importance of these changes may seem small, but they ensure that the body we create today remains free of politicisation to the extent that it possibly can.

We will have some further questions for the minister on the operation of the bill during the committee stage, to provide clarity for the Senate on the operation of these amendments and the other functions of these bills. I would very much like to thank the minister and her office for the engagement that she's had with us on these matters. It has been greatly appreciated.

Finally, on the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023: the opposition supports this bill. As with all matters in relation to staffing and legislation which governs the way in which staff employment is managed, Minister Farrell has provided an approach that has allowed consensus on legislation that provides for the support of the parliament and the operations of parliamentarians and their staff. The opposition thanks the minister and his office for their sincere and genuine engagement in the development of this legislation.

This bill originates from recommendation 18 of the Set the standard: report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, the Jenkins review. This recommended a comprehensive review of the operation of the effectiveness of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1994—the MOP(S) Act—to ensure consistency with modern employment frameworks. The MOP(S) Act establishes a framework for parliamentarians and office holders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth. This employment currently operates for three categories of staff: personal staff, electorate offices, and consultants. This is done through determinations made through the prime minister or their delegate, nominally the special minister of state. It's important to note that this legislation has been in effect now for 39 years and has not changed in any significant way until the Jenkins review and changes made by the former coalition government.

The review resulted in 15 recommendations, which were agreed in principle by both the government and the opposition. The bill will implement 11 of these recommendations of the review into the MOP(S) Act, and the remaining recommendations will be implemented by the proposed new statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, to be established by the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023. The changes in this bill fall into six categories over four schedules. First, the bill clarifies roles and responsibilities of parliamentarians, office holders and employees, including their obligation under the workplace law. In practice, this bill clarifies the roles of parliamentarians, office holders and the prime minister, and clarifies the responsibilities of parliamentarians, office holders and employees by articulating that parliamentarians are responsible for their workplaces and that they are beholden to various acts, such as the discrimination act. This is an important measure as it improves the relationship between the employment framework and the modern workplace law, noting that the review of the MOP(S) Act stated that the parliamentarian has day-to-day management and decision-making in relation to employees.

Second, the bill will bring the act into line with current practice. It will screen the MOP(S) Act, including by reflecting categories of employment as they are referred to in contracts and agreements, and removing obsolete provisions in the act. These changes define categories of employment that better reflect the categories of employment rather than by who employs them. Third, the bill also enhances the transparency of employment arrangements with a new requirement that the determination of terms and conditions for employment under the act are made publicly available on the federal register of legislation, unless that would impinge on the privacy of individuals. While many determinations are already published on the Department of Finance website, this requirement will ensure that a single and clear source of information for interpreting the conditions created under the act.

Fourth, the bill will include requirements intended to guide decision-making by parliamentarians about employment matters and to support fair outcomes and processes while making significant employment decisions. Fifth, the new provision for temporary suspension of employment will offer an alternative to termination of employment. Suspension could occur with or without pay. Parliamentarians will be required to consult with the new PWSS prior to making a decision to terminate the employment of a staff member or suspend staff without pay. The bill also allows for the PWSS to step in as an employer in circumstances when there is no longer a sitting parliamentarian. Sixth, the bill will make changes to the act's automated termination provisions and clarify the intended operations of these provisions. The measures in this bill will also provide for minor and technical amendments of other acts that refer to it, to ensure that there is a consistency of language across the statutes. There are many items in this bill that were specifically sought by staff, that will increase their job security, particularly for electorate staff of parliamentarians who occupy particular offices such as ministers and party leaders. Lastly, and noting the significant time between the introduction of this act and the current changes, the bill also provides for a further review within five years of the amendments commencing, as was recommended by the MOP(S) Act review.

These three bills mark a significant next step for the implementations of the Jenkins review and the continued work to improve commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. Following these bills, the coalition expects the process to turn to the creation of the independent parliamentary standards commission. We know that there is more work to be done, but the coalition is committed to working with all parties, with Independents and with staff to continue to make our workplaces safer and more respectful for everybody here.

I rise with pleasure to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bills, which are the next step in establishing the independent, trauma-informed PWSS to support staff and MPs dealing with harassment and abuse. We wouldn't be debating these bills or any of the preceding workplace reforms to address sexual harassment in the last few years were it not for the bravery of young, predominantly female parliamentary staff. So, at the outset of my contribution to debating these bills, I again want to pay tribute to the tenacity, grace, strength and determination of the survivors who spoke out and brought us to this moment, where we are legislating reforms to help embed and further drive the change in the culture of parliament that's been so desperately needed since parliament was first established. Thank you in particular to Brittany Higgins, Dhanya Mani, Chelsey Potter, Tessa Sullivan, Rachelle Miller and Josie Coles; to all women who've survived sexual harassment and abuse at work; to other survivors, like Saxon Mullins; to those who fight to keep students safe on campus, like Sharna Bremner and Nina Funnell; and to so many other women, and some men, whose strength and resilience are driving this change. Thank you.

The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary staffers in this building had experienced some form of sexual harassment, as had many female parliamentarians—one in three. That is utterly unacceptable in any century, let alone 2023. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace, whether that's here in Parliament House or anywhere else.

The Respect@Work reforms, which this chamber has dealt with in the last few years and which passed the parliament in their entirety last year, enshrine a positive duty on employers to provide a safe workplace for their employees. They are crucial protections for workers right across the country in every single workplace, but parliament also needs to be setting the standard for workplaces, and those positive duty laws apply to us here as well. They mean that we as parliamentarians are all responsible for shifting our focus to actively preventing workplace sexual harassment and discrimination, rather than simply responding, generally inadequately, when it occurs. At the parliamentary level, it's now mandatory for everyone to attend sexual harassment, bullying and workplace conduct training, and there's a register to confirm who's completed this training.

Importantly, the PWSS has been established as a service to both staff and MPs to discuss workplace issues and how to ensure that they're meeting the workplace expectations of obligations. This includes assisting MPs on how to meet their positive duties to provide a safe workplace to their staff. The PWSS education, reporting and monitoring roles will keep parties on track for their commitments to improving diversity within the parliament. We've made some progress, but we still have a long way to go.

I will take this opportunity to say that universally, to a person, the feedback on the utility of the PWSS has been brilliant. I have had a multitude of staff and other workers in this building really commend the quality of the support that the PWSS provides, and it feels like that's a response that everyone's having, so full credit to the workers at the PWSS. I just want to acknowledge what a glorious service it is that we and our staff are able to access, and I want to pass on to the PWSS how valued their work and support has been.

The attention so far has been on sexual harassment and assault, but we must not ignore the racism, ableism, ageism and classism that still occur in this building and in these workplaces. People of colour, people with disability and older women have all reported that their harassment was compounded by discrimination and that they were targeted more, believed less, supported less and too often driven from this workplace. I can't look around the room and pretend that we don't have a representation problem. I'm really looking forward to the contribution of my esteemed colleague Senator Faruqi on these matters. She continues to fight in all spheres of her work to dismantle racism, not to mention ableism and other forms of discrimination. We have a lot to learn. I'm very grateful for the results that Senator Faruqi has produced so far, and I'm looking forward to her outlining those when she makes her contribution.

We know that First Nations women and women of colour are largely erased from media commentary, from culture and from history. Failing to acknowledge the labour and the experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse women sends the entirely wrong message that sexual harassment and other forms of abuse only impact white women, but we know that these crimes disproportionately impact culturally and linguistically diverse women and First Nations women. The bills before us today are a step in the right direction, but they are a very small step. Cultural diversity is still lacking in our workplace. Parliament is still not a safe, equal, inclusive or respectful workplace for everyone. The Greens will continue to push for the reforms to parliamentary culture to be rolled out nationally as a matter of urgency. Establishing an independent PWSS was a key recommendation of Set the standard, and it has already taken too long. This bill has now gone through all of the due processes; it's taken account of feedback from staff and union representatives, as is appropriate; and now it's time to pass it so that staff and the community can see real action on the Jenkins Set the standard recommendations.

The PWSS has been a huge step forward in improving parliament, but without enforcement powers it can't solve the problem. The Greens have been calling for an enforceable code of conduct for parliamentarians and senior staff for many, many years. Without genuine consequences for bad behaviour, like suspension from parliament, loss of entitlements or a direction to provide an apology, at the very least, there is nothing to deter bad behaviour. I note that, whilst both houses of parliament have now endorsed the draft codes of conduct for behaviour, we're still waiting on the establishment of the enforcement body for those codes. We're still waiting for an independent parliamentary standards commission, which would investigate breaches and enforce those codes. As a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, I know that the work to set up that body is, and will continue to be, complex, but there's no doubt that it's been too slow. We've heard fresh revelations this week from members of parliament in the other chamber, MPs Karen Andrews and Kylea Tink, about totally inappropriate parliamentary behaviour, so it is clear that the enforcement of those codes of conduct is desperately and urgently needed.

Recommendation 22 of Set the standard was for a parliamentary standards commission to enforce codes of conduct within 12 months. The IPSC was expected in October, but the time frame has been delayed to February of next year. When female MPs are being subject to sexist, intimidatory behaviour, you can only imagine how much worse it is for staff. We said we were going to set the standard and turn the page; it's time for us to make good on those commitments. One of hurdles identified in Set the standard was that staff are reluctant to come forward if they know there are not going to be any consequences, particularly when their harasser or abuser is an MP. That is why we desperately need to get on with the establishment of the independent parliamentary standards commission, so that everyone in this building can have confidence that we mean what we say when we pass these codes of conduct that are meant to regulate our behaviour and provide a sense of safety to staff and the other people we share this building with. So we are disappointed that the time frame has blown out from October to February and we will continue to insist that no further delays occur.

We will keep pushing to make sure that the IPSC is established as soon as possible to give staff confidence that we take their safety seriously. But, whilst that work is being done, we can actually comply with the codes voluntarily. It's already a responsibility of every MP to act consistently with the commitments they made when endorsing the codes earlier this year, and for all parties to act quickly in response to complaints. The Greens will continue to push to make sure that the PWSS and the future IPSC have the resources they need and the powers they need to create a safe and respectful workplace.

To end Australia's culture of sexual violence, harassment and abuse we must start by supporting victims to come forward and dismantling the power imbalances and gender stereotypes that deter them from doing so. Staff and the community deserve to see action on all of the Jenkins Set the standard recommendations, and they deserve that action now. I'm very pleased that today, finally, after what seems a very long fortnight, we're getting to the PWSS bill and related bills. I very much look forward to their passage, which is expected today, and to an expedition of the independent parliamentary standards commission, which will give those codes of conduct teeth and finally complete the implementation of Set the standard. There's no more time to waste. We need to make the changes that are so desperately needed.

I too rise to support the passage of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 and Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023. This legislation has been long in development and consideration, and it is critical to the future reputation of this workplace as a respected and valuable employer. The legislation has had a very long and detailed gestation, and I commend everyone who has worked on developing it.

Over successive governments, we have seen improvements in the way this parliament operates. We've certainly had a few assessments and reviews in recent years, and I do want to note that it was under the coalition government that the Foster review was commissioned and there was also the commissioning of the review by the Australian Human Rights Commission, headed by Sexual Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. I really want to thank Ms Jenkins for her work in that review and the way she conducted that review: the confidential nature of it, giving staff across the board and politicians the ability to provide information and feedback to the review in an entirely confidential manner. It also enabled the provision of a report that was thorough and comprehensive in considering all the necessary details. Following those two reviews, the former coalition government established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, which will now be enshrined by this legislation.

This bill demonstrates a commitment to deliver on the recommendations of the Jenkins review and the Set the standard report that was written, directed at making all commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safe and respectful. Commissioner Jenkins set out to deliver a review that was evidence based, voluntary and trauma-informed, and she certainly did that. Her report made 28 recommendations, and their implementation is a shared responsibility across the parliament. And that is why the development of the bill that we're discussing today was led by a cross-parliamentary leadership taskforce, which was assisted by a staff consultation group because, very importantly, in this aspect, our staff—I mean, our staff always matter, but this is about making this place safer and a better workplace for staff and for ourselves. I am a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and I want to thank all members of the task force for the constructive and collaborative way we all worked together to ensure that this bill was deliverable and implementable. I thank all of my colleagues for the respectful way we had discussions and did those consultations with staff. I want to thank all the staff who participated in the consultation group for their thoughtful feedback and for the way they constructively approached this task.

The first bill in this package, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill, implements recommendation 11 of the report, which stated:

The Australian Government should establish an Office of Parliamentarian Staffing and Culture, within 12 months, to provide human resources support to parliamentarians and Members of Parliament (Staff) Act employees that is:

(a) centralised and accountable to Parliament, with the enforcement of standards

(b) designed to provide human resources support and administrative functions in the areas of policy development, training, advice and support, and education.

Through our discussions and considerations, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce determined that the PWSS is the appropriate vehicle for that Office of Parliamentarian Staffing and Culture, and there is further work to be done on establishing the next steps.

On establishment of the PWSS, it will do further work to implement another five of the Jenkins recommendations. The Set the standardreport found that there was an absence of an appropriate authoritative culture for parliamentarians and their staff and a lack of standardised people management processes. Parliament is not a homogeneous, single workplace. It's more akin to a shopping mall, where each individual office is like an individual shop within that shopping mall. It is a complex beast, which was recognised by Jenkins. But, by establishing the PWSS, we have developed support, complaint resolution and review functions that the existing service will integrate into the new entity. We've got a consistent and standardised package of training for parliamentarians and their staff. We will start to have more common standards across this varied workplace.

The review function, which is akin to a complaint investigation process, will continue to be performed by the new service pending the establishment of the independent parliamentary standards commission, which is recommendation 22 of the report. This new body will have delegated power that incorporates the new PWSS, including its advisory and support functions. I look forward to the continued work of the PLT in establishing the independent parliamentary standards commission. As it stands, and under this bill, the PWSS and then later the IPSC will operate a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to receive disclosures as well as to handle formal and informal complaints and appeals about misconduct. It is intended that the new commission will also be led by an independent office holder. The PWSS will continue to have education and training functions to support parliamentarians and their staff in their employment relationship. It will also provide training on codes of conduct to a broader cohort of people that work in the parliamentary workplace. As the Jenkins review described:

Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are an ecosystem made up of multiple workplaces, each with its own culture.

The Set the standard report highlighted in so many ways how parliament is unique. But it also, importantly, reminded us:

This is Parliament. It should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor of what culture should be.

This legislation has many parts, but, importantly, it does establish the PWSS with a range of obligations, including human resources support, policy development, education and training, and reporting on things such as diversity, culture and work health and safety. The legislation, importantly, establishes the chief executive officer and arrangements for the appointment, conditions and termination of the CEO. The independence of the PWSS CEO is absolutely integral to the effective working of the body. They must genuinely be independent, because that is what will deliver and enshrine raised standards and a better workplace culture. Another important part of the bill is the establishment of the PWSS advisory body, who will assist the CEO in the operations of the PWSS. There will also be the establishment of a consultative committee made up of an independent chair, parliamentarians and staff of parliamentarians, which will provide an important conduit to allow employers and employees alike to speak directly with the PWSS.

The consequential amendments that are provided for in the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 cover off changes and transitional arrangements as the new PWSS is embedded. The last bill in this group, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill, amends certain sections of the act commonly referred to as the MOP(S) Act to improve transparency and clarify the employment framework for parliamentarians and their staff. This has been developed through the review of the MOP(S) Act which was undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet last October and will also help drive the cultural change in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces

Parliament House is a special place. It's a place that we should all feel privileged to work in but we should all feel safe to work in. It is filled with passionate and dedicated people who work on very hard and important issues that can change lives, deliver prosperity and economic security, and enshrine our very high standards of democracy. There is a cross-party desire to have this suite of legislation passed as soon as reasonably possible but it's very important that it be right. Too much has gone into the development of these bills thus far. It is important that we focus on ensuring that our Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, not just in this building but across the Commonwealth parliamentary workforce, can demonstrate to staff that they are valued, that they feel respected, and that they can feel safe where they work and with whom they work.

I thank everyone who's worked so hard to date to deliver the very best and my colleagues on the parliamentary leadership task force. I also want to make specific mention of both Senator Katy Gallagher and Senator Jane Hume, who have worked very hard to make sure that this bill can be implemented with common sense and practicality. I'd also like to thank Senator Hume's adviser, John Harris, and her team for keeping my office and me informed every step along the way. I value that contribution by the staff and I hope the passage of these bills today makes this place an even better place to work.

I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Services Bill 2023 and associate myself with the excellent comments made by my colleague, Senator Larissa Waters. This bill gives effect to recommendation 11 of the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard, the report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The bill creates the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as an independent human resource entity for staff and parliamentarians, which, believe it or not, hasn't existed until now in this place. This was a major problem identified by the Set the standard report.

I do want to first up, though, thank PWSS and its amazing staff for the excellent and extremely valuable work that they do in supporting us and our teams in here. I know this because I have personally accessed that support many times because this place is far from ideal for a migrant Muslim brown woman, and that does take its toll.

In addition to PWSS, there are multiple other important and urgent recommendations of the Set the standard report which are yet to be implemented. No-one can deny that this place desperately needs a shift in culture. Hardly a week or even a day goes by without an example of unacceptable and bad behaviour and it is way past time that we stop couching these terrible and harmful behaviours as 'robust debate'. Intimidation, bullying, racism, sexism or any form of discrimination is not robust debate; it is vile behaviour that should stop, and it should not be acceptable or tolerated in any workplace, including our own. We need to see all the recommendations of the Set the standard report implemented as quickly as possible. This bill does represent a step forward in establishing a proper human resource agency, and this agency will act in some ways to change the culture of this place and improve the support that is made available to people who work here. But there is so much work still to be done.

One of the outstanding and key recommendations of the Jenkins report is the establishment of an independent parliamentary standards commission, the IPSC, that will formalise and enforce codes of conduct for parliamentarians and staff. Legislation is required to establish the IPSC. The Set the standard report recommended the IPSC be established within 12 months. It was initially expected in October this year, but here we are. It has been delayed to February 2024. That is a real shame. How long will we have to wait before these recommendations are implemented? It's not good enough. We really need to establish this body urgently, because implementation and enforcement of the behaviour codes of conduct is really a big missing piece here. Even though both the House and the Senate have endorsed these codes, they have not really been implemented, nor is there a mechanism to enforce them. Without enforceable behaviour codes, I must say that any other changes are still a bit of tinkering at the edges and a bandaid measure, even though they are necessary. There is no use in merely treating the symptoms of the problem while ignoring the root causes.

While developing these codes, we received overwhelming evidence that the workplace culture in parliament was broken and harmful in so many ways to too many people and that bullying, harassment sexual assault, racism, discrimination against disabled people, ageism and all forms of discrimination were, in fact, commonplace. We can never forget that the Jenkins report revealed a staggering 51 per cent of people working in parliamentary workplaces had experienced bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. First Nations people, people of colour, people with disabilities and LGBTQIA+ people experience discrimination, micro-aggression and segregation. Of course, it should be unacceptable. The highest office in this country should lead the way on workplace safety. Instead, it has been toxic, cut-throat, hyper masculine, whitewashed and exclusionary on multiple levels.

It deeply concerns me to say that despite all of the revelations over the past few years, parliament still remains an unsafe place for women, people of colour and other marginalised people. It's been eight months since the behaviour codes of conduct were developed and six months since parliament endorsed them, but we are still waiting for their implementation while this terrible behaviour goes on. As a member of the committee that was responsible for developing these codes, I am really disappointed by the slow progress. These behaviour codes and their enforcement are a bare minimum to lift standards of behaviour in this place. A support service without behaviour codes of conduct and, more importantly, consequences for MPs, is a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I urge the government to quickly set up the IPSC with the investigative and enforcement mechanisms that have already been recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and by the Jenkins report so that the codes have power to make the change that is so desperately needed and to hold people to a high standard, to hold people to account and then, if they don't meet the standard, to actually have consequences. This is a matter of urgency. Anything less is unacceptable and will not result in the real change in culture which I hope most of us want in here.

The codes set an expectation of how we behave in this place, but meaningful improvement will depend on a real commitment to changing culture and actually embracing diversity. We know that our parliament unfortunately remains a place where power and privilege are entrenched. This is the bigger challenge that we all have to overcome. We cannot do this without making sure that our parliaments actually look like the communities that they represent. It is a small but positive change to see that there are a few more First Nations people and people of colour in this place after the last election, but there is still a long way to go before parliament reflects our streets and suburbs and not the closed, privileged networks where many in this place continue to come from. Entrenchment of privilege and power—especially when unchecked, and with no enforceable consequences—is the root cause of why this place has a toxic and deeply harmful culture. My hope is that the PWSS will not only continue to act independently but also be forceful in its recommendations for a safe, supportive and respectful workplace.

I note that, where needed, the PWSS will be able to make policies and training programs mandatory, and this function is so crucial. I have pushed, and will continue to push, for anti-racism training, disability discrimination training and First Nations cultural awareness training to be made mandatory for all in this place—MPs and staff. This is one of the recommendations of the joint committee which worked on parliamentary standards, of which I was a member. If there's one place that needs unpacking of white privilege and white fragility, it's this place. Mandating anti-racism training for all federal MPs in parliament, and Commonwealth employees, is really essential to doing that.

While training and support are important, so is accountability. I note that the PWSS will have the ability to make public when MPs do not undertake the mandatory training they've been asked to do. I'm hoping that this will serve to increase transparency in this place and hold people accountable for their actions—and even push them to actually do the training.

The behaviour code, the PWSS and the IPSC are all crucial to making this place safe and respectful for all. But at the end of the day, politicians and their parties need to show leadership and to model the behaviour that people out there expect from us. This is a good start, but there's more to do, especially for the behaviour codes to be implemented and the enforcement mechanisms to be set up. I want to thank all the people who have come forward with such courage to share evidence with the various reports and committees. Sometimes it has been deeply disturbing evidence of what they experienced in their parliamentary workplace. I can assure them that the Greens want to make sure that all their work has not been in vain, and that the only reason we're moving forward with change today is because all of them came forward and pushed for this change. It is not easy, and I do thank them for their courage.

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government's amendments. We will get those circulated.

I thank everyone for their contributions on this bill. It is, I think, the parliament at its best, when we come together on legislation and work collaboratively—this being in the interests of everyone who works in this building. As many of those who have contributed to the debate today have pointed out, this has come from the substantial piece of work that the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins did into the culture of the parliament as a workplace. She released the Set the standard report, which had a number of recommendations for changes that should be made to this workplace and in our electorate offices around the country. These were to ensure that we were driving improvements, not only in the conduct but in the culture of our workplaces. I think that anyone who read that report or who was involved in those discussions certainly heard from a lot of people in this building, and from those who had left this building, about the less-than-ideal way they had been treated in this workplace. In some cases, there were extremely traumatic and life-changing experiences in this workplace.

The commitment in the Set the standard report was that we commit to the recommendations and the implementation of the recommendations. I would like to start by thanking all those people, many of them staff in this building, who came forward during the set the standards inquiry, because it was their evidence, contributions and experiences that led to the recommendations which have led to the significant change that has happened in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. These bills are part of that response.

The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, which was recognised in the former parliament, the 46th Parliament, was up and running reasonably quickly for how things work here. I think it has been such a significant success story of appropriate support services for both parliamentarians and their staff. This package of bills seeks to strengthen that. I very much thank current and former staff who provided their personal stories, often at personal cost, to that inquiry because it is through those stories that we are standing here today debating legislation that is putting in place permanently the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service.

This has been a product of extensive and close engagement with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and with the task force staff consultation group. I acknowledge Senator Hume, Senator Waters, Senator Davey and Senator Farrell from this chamber—I don't think I have forgotten anybody—and from the other place Ms Claydon, Ms Ley and Ms Zali Steggall, who have been on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce in this parliament. I also acknowledge Senator Birmingham, Mr Morton, Senator Payne and Ms Plibersek, who are not on this task force but were on the last one. It really has been a very collaborative effort across the parliament.

The 46th Parliament's Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce really grabbed the Set the standard report and put in place immediate responses and the 47th Parliament's Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has been doing work on making sure that we continue to implement recommendations. Importantly, it has been a fantastic forum to negotiate this legislation. I also acknowledge the MPs and senators who have got involved through Senator Hume's work on the opposition side and also through work on our side. Certainly I've attended some meetings with crossbench members of parliament who have been interested and involved in this as well. In my time in this place it is a real exemplar of how to work on legislation together.

The bills before us today really do stay true to the guiding principles in the Set the standard report for a new human resources entity to support the employment relationship between parliamentarians and their staff. The new PWSS will play a key role in advancing the professionalism of that relationship. A significant distinction from the existing arrangement is that the new PWSS is independent and cannot be directed by any person in the performance of its function or exercise of its power.

Furthermore, consistent with the theme in Set the standard, the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will have functions concerned with making Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safe and respectful. It is imperative that we can all see progress being made on that front—and I genuinely think there has been during my time in this place, but there is definitely more to be done. It is why the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will be required to publish annual reports covering the culture of the workplace, as well as progress in preventing workplace misbehaviour.

As we've heard, the parliament is a unique and prominent workplace. People who work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a professional, safe and respectful environment. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 complements the PWSS Bill package by modernising the employment framework for parliamentarians and their employees. It implements recommendations from the review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet last year. That review in turn implemented recommendations of the Set the standard report. The bill clearly sets out the responsibilities of parliamentarians and employees under modern workplace laws, including employment principles, to set expectations of the workplace. The bill will provide greater clarity and certainty for both MOP(S) Act employees and parliamentarians. Together with the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service bill package, these bills are important reforms for the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace.

Before closing, I thank very much the members of the Jenkins reform team, who have been working on this. We are very fortunate to have such skilled and talented public servants who have really led the way through not only putting this bill together and getting it into the shape it needs to be but the consultations that have happened so broadly in putting together this package of legislation and pushing forward on the Jenkins recommendations overall. The responsibility of government is highly valued in terms of their advice to me. I have seen the amount of work they have put in to this, and I would like to extend my appreciation and thanks for their continued work as we move to the IPSC, or the independent parliamentary standards commission, which I note a number of senators have spoken about today.

In relation to the comments around delays I would say this. We consulted with Kate Jenkins, as we formed the 47th Parliament, on how we'd progress some of her recommendations. There was an acknowledgement from her that in her timing of recommendations she hadn't accounted for the election period and the change of government and all that comes with that. She was comfortable that the PLT was progressing the recommendations in good time. I think the PLT also had a discussion about how to land the PWSS legislation before proceeding to the IPSC as both were significant pieces of work and we wanted to make sure that we were able to progress them in an orderly way, which is the decision. The responsibility there was to get the PWSS legislated and up and running as soon as we could. The work on the IPSC has been going alongside but it will really start now that this legislation has passed the parliament. The PLT has a principles based document that we're considering at the moment, but everyone should be very clear that that is the next big piece of work that we've got to work through.

We accept that this is a big structural change to this parliament and that people have views about it. So part of the work that Senator Hume and I have been doing is to give colleagues within our organisations the opportunity to be involved. I would prefer, frankly, that we take the time to get things right, which I think we've done with the PWSS. We have some amendments to work through in committee stage, but we've done that. We've been negotiating this bill right up until it's here before you today; I hope we can engage in the same process for the IPSC. I don't see it as a lack of any desire to get these recommendations dealt with. These are new bodies. We need to make sure that we get them right and that people feel consulted in the process. I would just make those comments in closing.

I know we have a few amendments to get through in the committee stage. I really thank Senator Hume very much. We decided early on that we wanted to work together on this and move as one if we could, even though there were areas where perhaps there was opportunity for disagreement. We've done that. We've worked through it, and I look forward to working with her on the IPSC—or maybe she's not looking forward to it—but we are committed to it and we are going to do that. I would like to thank the staff in our offices who have worked really hard on this. Senator Hume, in your office and certainly in mine, we've had a number of staff that have worked tirelessly in between the Public Service and the chamber part of the business to get this legislation here today. I acknowledge them and thank people for their contributions and the ability to get this bill dealt with during this sitting fortnight.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

May I just point out to the chamber that there is now an amendment to an amendment that has been circulated in my name that I will be moving on behalf of the opposition: the amendment on sheet 2115, of which the government is aware. I just want to make sure that it has been circulated around the chamber. It's simply a technical amendment to an amendment. But in the meantime I do have some questions for the minister that I would like to get on the record. The first one of those is really about the appointment of the CEO of the new PWSS and exactly what the process will be around the appointment of that CEO.

Thank you, Senator Hume. I appreciate the sum of the discussions that we've had in the PLT on this. We would hope and envisage that it would be a consultative process around the appointment. There has been some early testing of interest or gearing up, but the formal recruitment process hasn't started. We're happy to work across the PLT with any views that you may have over that. It will be an important position that an individual will be recruited to, and it's important that that individual has the support of the parliament.

Thank you, Minister, for that. I agree that the concept of consultation in the appointment of the CEO, particularly the first CEO, is just so fundamentally important to the success of this body. So, for the benefit of the committee, perhaps you could describe to us how that consultation on the appointment will be conducted. Will be done in writing, for instance? Will you write to those that you're consulting with? What will the timing of that consultation process be?

I'm happy to take views, particularly those of the PLT, on that. I'm happy to consult in writing if that's the preference. I would expect that people may have some views on the selection criteria for the position to help shape those. I'm very happy to work with you and others on that. We all have a vested interest in making sure this is a successful appointment, not least for the person that will be ultimately successful in that appointment. In terms of timing, the reason we're trying to have passage of these bills today is so that it can be operational in October, which doesn't leave a huge amount of time. So I would expect we need to really move on this in the next few days.

Again, thank you, Minister, for that full response. I want to understand: if the consultation does occur and occurs in writing, will you wait for a response to that consultation before making the appointment?

Yes, I would expect so. Again, if there's a particular interest, I'm very happy to work with everyone on how the recruitment process works in practice for this position. It's just that timing issue. I would expect that, even when there were the final candidates, there would be some discussion and a consultative way of working through that in a confidential and professional way.

Thank you. That is reassuring. Can I ask you just a little bit more? Without breaking any confidences, of course, is this an appointment that will be considered by cabinet? If so, will that consultation with cabinet or discussion with cabinet occur before or after the consultation with other interested members around the workplace?

I haven't got confirmation of this, so I stand to be corrected, but I imagine this appointment would be taken to cabinet. I would hope that if Senator Farrell or I take that appointment, it is done with the ability for us to recommend to the cabinet that this is a position that has been consulted and supported.

Minister, you recently informed the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce that recruitment of a CEO has already commenced, at least in its embryonic stages. Could you provide an update on whether that recruitment process has progressed any further since that update to the PLT?

GALLAGHER (—) (): My understanding is that we advertised to appoint a recruiter for the appointment, but it hasn't progressed, pending the legislation passing. I would expect that will move at speed now.

Has it progressed to a point where there are already names that are being considered for the position and, if so, how many will be considered?

Certainly not to my knowledge. I haven't seen any names. I don't believe it's at that point.

Can I ask whether the government has provided any recommendations of individuals to the recruitment process at this stage? If so, could the Minister undertake to provide an update of those names that the government has recommended to the PLT as soon as possible?

ator GALLAGHER (—) (): Yes. There haven't been any names.

Could you confirm for the chamber how mandatory policies and procedures will be made under this legislation? Will the policies, specifically, be disallowable?

This is an area where we had some discussion. Senator Hume, your question was about how it is going to work in practice; is that right?

Yes—whether you can confirm for the chamber, exactly how the mandatory policies and procedures will be made and whether the policies will be disallowable.

tor GALLAGHER (—) (): This is covered under section 17 of the act—the policy development function. It is an area we had some discussion over. A policy or procedure determined under that section may declare that it's a mandatory policy or procedure, and that is determined by the CEO by legislative instrument, which is disallowable.

Is there a requirement for those mandatory policies to be approved by anyone, and if so by whom?

Again, this is a change that we've made in consultation with each other. Before a CEO determines a mandatory policy or procedure, the CEO must consult with the PWSS Consultative Committee and must have referred the mandatory policy to the PWSS Advisory Board. The PWSS Advisory Board must have been taken to have approved the mandatory policy or procedure or the advisory board must have notified the CEO that it has approved the proposed mandatory policy or procedure. The PWSS must also publish a policy or procedure determined under this section on its website. That gives the board the ability to tick it off and then return it to the CEO.

Can I ask the minister how she envisages the consultation on those mandatory policies and procedures will occur before they're made mandatory? I understand that the advisory board will be part of that process, but how do you actually see that back-and-forth happening in real life? In particular, how will the opportunity be given to staff to consult on proposed mandatory policies and procedures? Will it be given at all? If so, will that go via the board?

It does need to go to the PWSS consultative committee. That is the forum for consultation. In terms of the advisory board and its considerations with the CEO, I imagine that would be between the advisory board and the CEO, but the consultative forum would be the appropriate place for the consultations to the board. Before the CEO determines a mandatory policy or procedure, it must consult the PWSS consultative committee about that policy or procedure, and I would imagine the PWSS advisory board would have to consider that as part of its consideration.

Can I clarify? Did you say the work health and safety committee would also be consulted there as well?

It is the PWSS consultative committee under section 17(6). That would be the forum for that consultation that you were talking about, because, before the CEO determines that it is a mandatory policy or procedure, it has to go to that committee.

Can we expect, then, that the work health and safety committee will also be consulted as a part of that broader process as well?

I'm advised that that would happen if that policy related to a work health and safety matter.

There are rule-making provisions under the PWSS Bill under section 69. Can you describe to the chamber what's envisaged under those powers? Specifically, will the rules made under this section be disallowable?

Under section 69, the minister may by legislative instrument make rules prescribing matters. They would be disallowable. It's essentially prescribing matters required or permitted by this act to be prescribed by rules or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this act. Under the explanatory memorandum, which deals with this, the minister may make rules prescribing codes of conduct, details of a matter that must or must not be included in a public report, under clause 22, remuneration and allowances to be paid to the CEO, or members of the PWSS advisory board, matters relating to the operation of the PWSS advisory board, provision for or in relation to the PWSS consultative committee or a Commonwealth entity, office or appointment under the law of the Commonwealth for the purposes of giving information to the PWSS for certain reports.

There are some examples of the rule-making power.

I'm conscious of time, Minister. I realise we're going to hit a hard marker and I know that we want to get this done. I'm not sure whether there are other questions around the chamber, but I just want to clarify two more things. First, will the rules that are made under the sections be listed on the Federal Register of Legislation?

Yes, they would be.

Finally, on the IPSC, the next great piece of the elephant that we have to bite off, can I confirm for the benefit of the chamber that it remains the commitment of the government to draft and introduce legislation relating to the independent parliamentary standards commission within the next 12 months?

Yes, it does. We can move as fast as the parliament is prepared to move with us. As you know, Senator Hume, we've got that principles document with the PLT now. We will move straight into intense negotiations on that piece of legislation from today.

Minister, the bill has been amended to have a sunsetting provision to the review function that allows for the independent complaints mechanism. Can you explain why that amendment has a two-year time period rather than a shorter period of twelve months?

This is just to ensure that we have in place, in a sense, a safety net for those investigations that may be ongoing in the event of the parliament dissolving. It's essentially to give comfort and time for those ongoing investigations to continue. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet ZB244 together.

Leave granted.

In respect of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, I move government amendments (1) to (4) on sheet ZB244 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 14), after the definition of member, insert:

Minister: see section 6A.

(2) Page 7 (after line 24), after clause 6, insert:

6A References to the Minister

Despite section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, a reference to "the Minister" in a provision of this Act or the PWSS rules at a particular time is a reference to:

(a) the Special Minister of State, if there is a Minister identified by that title at that time; or

(b) otherwise—the Minister, or any of the Ministers, administering the provision at that time.

Note: A reference to a Minister in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may include a reference to a person acting for or on behalf of the Minister (see subsection 19(4) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).

(3) Clause 22, page 21 (line 31) to page 22 (line 3), omit subclauses 22(5) and (6), substitute:

(5) Before the PWSS publishes a report under this section on its website, the PWSS must give each of the following persons (a Presiding Officer) a copy of the report:

(a) the President of the Senate;

(b) the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(6) A Presiding Officer of a House of the Parliament must cause a copy of the report to be presented to that House as soon as practicable after the Presiding Officer receives the copy under subsection (5).

(4) Clause 22, page 22 (line 5), omit "laid before", substitute "presented to".

These are some amendments we have negotiated with the opposition to ensure that the administering minister is the Special Minister of State and that, when it comes to tabling public reports, those are done by the presiding officers, which is in line with entities like the ANAO. That's the way its reports are tabled. I commend those amendments to the chamber.

The opposition will be supporting these amendments. They've been made to give certainty and clarity to the legislation for staff and for parliamentarians. The first part ensures that the legislation will be managed by the minister who's traditionally the minister responsible for matters relating to our workplaces, expenses and resourcing, and that's the Special Minister of State. This is appropriate in that it will ensure that the matters that relate to us as a workplace are managed together in a holistic way.

The second is a small but important amendment. In the original drafting of the bill, the PWSS would have been required to provide reports through the minister before they were tabled in parliament. This amendment will mean that the bill will be provided directly to the chambers in such a way that no member of the ministry determines the timing of publication and that there's no perception of politicisations of these reports, particularly those reports that relate to noncompliance with the PWSS mandatory policies and education. In respect of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2115:

(1) At the end of the sheet, add:

"(5) Clause 23, page 23 (line 19), omit "Minister", substitute "President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives"."

This amendment corrects an error in the drafting following the government amendment. It will change a now outdated reference to section 23 to reflect the changes made in the amendments in ZB244, where there will be no longer reference to a minister in section 22(5). We're moving this amendment just to assist in the legibility of the legislation and correct that oversight.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that government amendments (1) to (4) on sheet ZB244, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ZC219 together.

Leave granted.

In respect of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ZC219 together:

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

(2) Page 9 (after line 22), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Repeal of review function

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023

1 Section 4

Omit:

(f) its review function; and

2 Section 11

Omit:

(f) its review function; and

3 Paragraph 13(f)

Repeal the paragraph.

4 Section 19

Repeal the section.

5 Subsection 61(6)

After "section 19", insert "(as in force immediately before the repeal of that section by Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2023)".

These amendments relate essentially to a sunset provision for the investigation mechanism that's being provided to the PWSS for two years after commencement of the PWSS. Obviously, in that time we'll be working to get the IPSC well in place, but it just provides that extra bit of time should unforeseen circumstances arise and there are ongoing investigations so that they will not stop with the arbitrary cut-off, should it be a shorter time frame. This gives more than enough time. The IPSC will be up and running, and it will be the body that does the investigations following its establishment.

The opposition will also be supporting this amendment. It's an important marker for all of us, including our staff and our workplaces. It places a time limit on the functions of the PWSS in relation to reviews, which is a function that will ultimately rest with the new independent parliamentary standards commission. The sunsetting clause means that this parliament will need to act before this function ceases. It will keep us honest to our commitments. The government has placed a time limit of two years on getting this other body established. Even though the opposition has asked for 12 months—that's when we asked for it to be created—we'll support this amendment because it will at least create that time limit.

Question agreed to.

Bills, as amended, agreed to.

Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to implement changes arising from recommendations of the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance, undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, commissioned in November last year. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove the requirement for the Australian Medical Association to agree to the appointment of the Director of the Professional Services Review; amend consultation requirements for appointing other statutory office holders of the PSR to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly; establish a new statutory office of Associate Director of the PSR; and remove the requirement for the Chief Executive Medicare, or CEM, to consult with stakeholder groups prior to issuing a notice to produce documents.

The Professional Services Review, or PSR, is an independent statutory agency responsible for maintaining the integrity of Australia's Medicare agency through investigating and sanctioning inappropriate practice by health professionals. The coalition has a strong and long-held commitment to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare. Our Medicare system underpins our world-class health system and, importantly, is there for all Australians. We are so fortunate in Australia to have a health system that is accessible and available to every Australian, no matter where they live or how old they are, and protecting its ongoing viability is key to this. Medicare, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, continues to provide Australians access to free hospital care and more-affordable health care and medicines.

When the coalition were in government, investment in the MBS and PBS grew significantly under our leadership. This meant we were able to subsidise and list over 2,900 new or amended drugs to allow more Australians affordable access to potentially life-changing and life-saving medicines and treatments. The coalition have been stewards in ensuring the viability of Medicare and supporting access to affordable health care for all Australians, having introduced this legislation in the last parliament. In fact, we oversaw record investment in this area, and we're committed to continuing that record through our commitment to investing $133 billion in Medicare over four years.

Our approach to Medicare saw the highest bulk-billing rates on record. That's why it has been really disappointing to see that since Labor came into government bulk-billing rates have been dropping consecutively every single month. The latest data shows a total Medicare bulk-billing rate of 77 per cent, and 80.2 per cent for non-referred GP appointments, in the 12 months to June this year. These are the lowest bulk-billing rates recorded since 2013. This is in stark comparison to the 12 months to June 2021, which saw rates at an all-time high of 88.8 per cent under the coalition.

The Albanese government is overseeing plummeting bulk-billing rates at a time when Australians are struggling to pay the bills, let alone cough up for an unexpected GP appointment. This proves how important—

Senator Ruston, it being 11.15, we have reached the hard marker and the debate is interrupted. You will be in continuation when the debate resumes.

URQUHART (—) (): I present the 11th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS CO MMITTEE

REPORT NO. 11 OF 2023

14 September 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 11 OF 2023

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 7.11 pm.

(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, and the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 November 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, and the Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 November 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by

31 May 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) the provisions of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, and the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2023 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

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

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

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

14 September 2023

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Disability Services and Inclusion Act 2023

This Bill will be accompanied by consequential and technical amendment legislation to ensure that the changes in the DSI Bill do not trigger any unintended legislative consequences in other legislative contexts and ensure smooth transition to the new legislative framework this Bill will enable.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

High public interest. The legislation is a repeal and replace of the Disability Services Act 1986 so it is significant reform.

Proactive engagement with the sector and additional scrutiny by the Parliament will benefit passage of the Bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee (CALC)

Possible hearing date(s):

2 hearings (accessible format- online) between w/c 25 October and w/c 16 October 2023)

Possible reporting date:

Have requested 9 November. Subject to broader Senate scheduling and to the agreement of the CALC Chair, we could manage 15 November reporting to have Senate Debate Week 9.

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

This repeals the Disability Services Act and replaces it. The consultation has not been made public.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

PWDA, WYDA, FNDN and other disability peak bodies.

Committee to which b ill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Priority is that there needs to be at least one hearing

Possible reporting date:

9 November 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 and Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

In addition to submissions from members of the public including those impacted by recent data breaches, submission might come from a range of stakeholders:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

November

Possible reporting date:

9 November 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023

Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various Stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

9 November 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 and Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Provide stakeholders an opportunity to speak to the measures in the Bills providing legislative authority for identity verification services.

Possible submissions or evidence f rom:

Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation at UNSW Law

Australian Banking Association

Business Council of Australia

Human Rights Law Centre

Human Technology Institute, UTS

Law Council of Australia

Australian Lawyers Alliance

Electronic Frontiers Australia

Tech Council

Telecommunications providers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

TBC

Possible report ing date:

18 October 2023

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Explore scope and impact of Bill and the potential to include other harmful interactive wagering services like, for example, lotteries.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Alliance for Gambling Reform

Charles Livingston, Senior Lecturer and Head of Gambling and Social Determinants Unit, Monash University School of public Health and Preventative Medicine

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communication

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

12 October 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

In addition to submissions from members of the public including those impacted by recent data breaches, submission might come from a range of stakeholders:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Early 2024, February or March

Possible reporting date:

31 May 2024

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip / Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Very large changes to Tobacco legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Cancer Council, PHAA, Lung Foundation

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Poss ible reporting date:

22 November 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various Stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September-November

Possible reporting date:

22 November 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee.

I just want to explain our position on that. The government recognises the complexity of this proposed legislation and is committed to a thorough, collaborative process of genuine consultation. We want to get this right, so we welcome a close interrogation of this bill to see if sensible amendments can be made to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose. In line with the usual practice involving legislation of this sensitive nature, the government has referred the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS is the appropriate committee to scrutinise this bill. The nature of the committee is that it can hold classified hearings and receive classified briefings from the security agencies. This will ensure that scrutiny of the bill is informed by the full picture of the security assessments underpinning the need for the legislation.

As we would expect, the government has also asked the PJCIS to hold public hearings and invite public submissions, again to ensure that the bill is scrutinised with the appropriate rigour by the parliament. The Greens Party—and I'm pre-empting some contributions from Senator McKim—does like to make some colourful arguments about these matters, but it's the job of the government and responsible parties of government to act in the national interest and ensure that Australians are safe, and that's what we're doing here. I understand that Senator Shoebridge has a different view, including casting a negative view on some of the good people in Defence, our intelligence agencies and the PJCIS. Ultimately, despite being the Greens' defence spokesperson, he and his party don't think that these bodies should exist.

Question agreed to.

by leave—President, I ask that the Australian Greens' opposition to this amendment be recorded in the Hansard.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee".

I move an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm:

Omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 November 2023".

I will just speak briefly to that amendment. We all know what's going to happen here, and that is that the major parties are going to collude to prevent the Senate from running an inquiry into the Australian Greens' bill to end native forest logging in Australia. And why are they going to do that? Because they're captive to the native forest logging industry. Why else are they going to do that? Because they don't want Australians to have a chance to discuss and contribute to a conversation about the fact that native forest logging has completely lost its social licence. Why else are they going to do that? Because they don't want to have a conversation in this country about the massive carbon bomb that is native forest logging. Why else do they not want to do that? Because they don't want to talk about the fact that native forest logging is driving species like the beautiful little swift parrot into extinction.

Let's be really clear about this. Native forest logging has no social licence. Native forest logging is a crime against nature. It is a crime against climate. Native forest logging is driving species to extinction. Native forest logging is a mendicant burden on the public purse. If you withdrew the public subsidies to the native forest logging industry, it would collapse tomorrow! It can't survive without the never-ending largesse from the Labor and Liberal parties. That is why the Labor and Liberal parties are going to collude to prevent the Greens' bill to end native forest logging going to a Senate inquiry, make no mistake.

It's another day in the Senate, and it's another stunt from the forest-science-denying group of people down the end of the chamber there, aka the Greens political party, as they're now referred to. There is no science behind what that group of people down there are proposing today—this bill to end native forest logging. We've heard about climate bombs, a crime against climate and a crime against nature. All of these things are bunkum. What happens when we end native forest logging in this country, something that is done to world's best standard, is based on science and supports jobs in regional communities? What happens when we ban this industry that is so evil?

You're delusional!

I cannot even begin to respond to that, Madam President, and I shan't, because it's disorderly. But the point is: when we shut this industry down, what will we do to get the timber we need for the appearance grade products that we demand in this marketplace? We'll get it from places like the Congo Basin. You want to talk about crimes against nature? You want to talk about damage to the environment? That mob down there, forest science deniers, completely abandon fact and science when it comes to propositions like this. You know what? People of Melbourne and Sydney who want their beautiful coffee tables and lovely floorboards, do you know where it's coming from? You're still going to be able to buy it with a little stamp saying it's all okay, but it will be coming out of places like the Congo Basin.

This crew have made an industry out of destroying industries that are sustainable and based on science, all because they tap into the psyche that some people have, and that is that they don't like seeing clear-felled coupes. Forget the science behind it. Forget the facts. Forget the jobs and the economic activity it generates. Forget about all of that, because it doesn't matter.

Nobody likes seeing clear-felled coupes.

I will take the interjection from Senator Shoebridge: 'Nobody likes seeing clear-felled coupes.' That is the basis upon which this bill is being moved—because it doesn't feel good. I'll tell you what: it is good for the environment. It is based on science. It creates jobs. What isn't good is bringing timber in for the same products that we buy today but, instead of getting it from sustainably managed, science based forestry operations in Australia, getting it from the Congo Basin or other places where they don't give a damn about the environment.

You know what? These forestry operations overseas have tinges of modern slavery attached to them. But apparently it's okay to shut down the forestry industry in Australia, okay to send the economic benefits of these jobs and that industry offshore, okay to offshore forestry operations to jurisdictions where they don't care about carbon emissions. I'll tell you what: as a signatory to the Glasgow declaration on halting deforestation by 2030, I'll guarantee you that none of those countries from which we will be drawing this material are signatories to that. They won't be replanting the trees that are ripped out of the ground as a result of what's happened in Victoria under the madness of the Andrews Labor government and what's happened in Western Australia under the madness of former premier McGowan's government—terrible policies that are not based on science, not based on fact, bad for the economy and bad for the environment. How anyone can stand in this place and say it is good for the environment to do what the Greens are proposing to do is beyond me.

Senator McKim calls it 'collusion'. I call it 'reality'. I call it 'based on science'. I call it 'based on fact'. I'm not going to abandon the people who work in this industry—honest, hardworking people—who rely on science, who back in what this industry does.

Honourable senators interjecting—

There are these silly, emotive questions being asked from the crazy corner of the Senate down there—the forest science deniers. 'Why do you hate gliders? Why do you hate swift parrots?' Apparently, they're mutually exclusive. There is no recognition in this bill, which they're seeking to refer off to this committee for inquiry, of what the industry has done to manage threatened species. It is based on emotion, not based on science, all for a Facebook clip. That's what this is about, and the Greens should hang their heads in shame as a result of this.

Order! I was reluctant to interrupt Senator Duniam, but I do remind everyone in the chamber: if you want to speak, rather than shout out and be disorderly and disrespectful, you seek the call. Senator Duniam, you also made a disparaging remark towards a section of the chamber, so I'm going to ask you to withdraw.

I shall withdraw.

The question is that the amendment to Senator Chisholm's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

I move:

That—

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

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 (subject to introduction and exemption)

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 (subject to introduction and exemption);

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

(c) general business notice of motion no. 334 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, relating to lobbying rules, be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Van from 16 to 19 October 2023, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I inform the chamber that I have resigned from the Liberal Party and now sit as an Independent. I also inform the chamber that I am designated as a whip for the purposes of standing order 24(a), relating to the membership of the Selection of Bills Committee.

Thank you, Senator Van. No other postponements? I remind senators that the question may be put at the request of any senator.

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023.

I seek leave to make a statement in regard to the motion.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I just want to explain why the government is moving this motion to have the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Repayment Bill) Bill 2023 and the Royal Commissions (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 exempted from the cut-off under standing order 111 to allow these bills to be considered today.

The social security amendment bill seeks to ensure faster and more efficient assessment of online claims for the Australian government disaster recovery payment. The one-off payment of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child is a helping hand to Australians in the aftermath of major disasters. It allows families to purchase essential items like food and replace damaged household items, clothing, school supplies or toys. It is critical that these changes are in place before the 2023-24 high-risk weather season, which formally starts on 1 October, so that the support for Australian households and families affected by major disasters is delivered quickly.

The royal commission amendment bill will authorise the use of private sessions for a royal commission, to be conducted by assistant commissioners. This will allow individuals to share experiences in trauma informed— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

ALLMAN-PAYNE () (): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Education Act 2013, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Bill proposes amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013 that will introduce a positive obligation on the federal government to increase the proportion of funding provided to government schools. The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the onus that ensures government schools are fully funded to their minimum standard.

Specifically, the amendments:

1. redefine the Commonwealth share for a government school to twenty-five percent or higher;

2. introduce an object of the Act that 'every school-aged child in Australia has access to a fully-funded government school'; and

3. introduce an obligation on the federal Education Minister to be satisfied when determining the Commonwealth share for a government school that it is consistent with the above objective.

This is motivated by a need to fill the current funding gap between jurisdictions with respect for government schools funding. The School Resourcing Standard is an estimate of how much total funding is needed for a student to meet their minimum educational needs. Funding of the School Resourcing Standard for government schools is divided between the federal government and the state and territory governments. This is negotiated in bilateral agreements with each state and territory.

The federal government currently provides twenty percent of the total portion of the School Resourcing Standard. States and territories are responsible for providing the remaining eighty percent. However, in effect the only jurisdiction to provide the full eighty percent of funding is the Australian Capital Territory, with all remaining jurisdictions falling significantly behind in providing their share of funding.

The result of this is that the majority of public school students in Australia do not receive the entirety of the School Resourcing Standard funding that is needed to meet their minimum educational need.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Davey, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Emergency Management and the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 16 October 2023, any briefing notes, media briefing notes, file notes, emails, written communication and reports, held between the National Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Meteorology since May 2023 regarding:

(a) the assessment of bushfire risk across all states and territories;

(b) the assessment of bushfire aerial capability for the upcoming Australian bushfire season;

(c) discussions, tenders and contracts for the lease of all aerial firefighting equipment considered essential for the 2023-24 spring-autumn bushfire season across all states and territories;

(d) alternative options in the event of insufficient leased aircraft including availability of Australian Defence Force equipment and personnel;

(e) consultants engaged to work on any contracts and all related aspects, including market advice on options to acquire appropriate aerial equipment; and

(f) advice received from the Australasian Fire Authorities Council.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Cadell, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 26 September 2023, the following documents:

(a) all documents, including any ministerial briefing notes, emails or correspondence relating to any risk assessment undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) regarding the ABC's 2023 Coronation coverage, in the possession of ABC or the Minister for Communications; and

(b) all documents, including any ministerial briefing notes, emails or correspondence relating to any formal and informal risk assessment undertaken relating to the ABC's 2023 Coronation coverage.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 335, standing in the name of Senator Cadell and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

That further consideration of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 only be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the Senate passes a bill, or bills, seeking to implement the Government's commitments to significantly overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 336, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to modify the operation of the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022(ACT).

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum in relation to the bill

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023.

President, every Australian parent wants their children to grow up in a safe environment.

Every man and woman should be entitled to walk the streets without fear.

And every family should be free from the misery and pain of drug dependency.

But these things are under threat in the Australian Capital Territory.

The ACT Government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 will commence on the 28th of October 2023.

It was a Bill that was rushed through the ACT Legislative Assembly as a Private Member's Bill to avoid scrutiny.

And on the 28th of October, the Labor-Greens government will roll out the red carpet to ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs.

Our nation's capital should not be the drug capital.

What does the Bill do?

President, this Bill does one simple thing. It preserves the status quo.

The single operative clause is short enough that it's worth reading into Hansard.

The Drugs o f Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 (ACT) has no force or effect as a law of the Australian Capital Territory, except as regards the lawfulness or validity of anything done in accordance with that Act before the commencement of this Act.

It doesn't affect territory rights.

It doesn't amend the powers of the ACT legislative assembly.

It says that a bad law that will harm Australians has no effect.

What have people said

President, the ACT Labor-Greens government has opened the door to dangerous drugs in Canberra and beyond.

It's worth looking closely at the impacts of this ACT legislation.

What have they done?

They have created a parking fine scheme that applies to the possession of ice, heroin, cocaine, MDMA and speed, among other things.

The ACT drug laws that come into force on the 28th of October do two things.

First, they water down current drug offences. The current possession offence is punishable by an $8,000 fine and imprisonment for two years.

This is replaced by a two-tiered system.

if you only have a 'small quantity' of the drug, you face a penalty of just a single penalty unit; and

for larger amounts, the fine remains, but the potential sentence is reduced from 2 years to just 6 months.

Second, under the new drug laws, if a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a 'simple drug offence', and is only holding a 'small quantity', they may issue an offence notice.

This is like a parking fine for drugs. The notice requires person to pay a penalty of $100, or attend an approved drug diversion program.

One hundred dollars—and you never go to court.

But colleagues, the bitter reality is that parking offences in Canberra are actually treated more seriously than dangerous drugs.

Because in Canberra you will now pay more for parking across the lines in a shopping centre than being caught carrying ice.

You will pay more for stopping your car near a post box than for possession of heroin.

Lawyers, police and pharmacists explicitly warned against these laws.

The ACT Law Society expressly said the ACT drug laws would "have a minimal effect on diverting drug users away from the criminal justice system".

The AFP has given evidence about cycles of crime that link drug use to offences relating to assault, burglary, stolen motor vehicles, theft, justice procedures and firearms.

They gave an operational example of how similar a "personal use" scheme has been exploited to sell cannabis to Canberra schoolchildren as young as 12 years old.

And our pharmacists—who are on the front line of addiction and dangerous drug use every day—expressly said the ACT drug laws would be "counter-productive to the aim of harm minimisation".

Why have they done this, an d what are the impacts?

President, the logic of the ACT drug laws just isn't there.

From 28 October, among other things, a person can carry up to 1.5 grams of ice, 1.5 grams of cocaine or 1 gram of heroin.

To put that in context, according to the US Department of Justice, that is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin.

And this is meant to be for personal use!

The operational issues for police are diabolical.

There is no clarity for police whether these Territory laws are consistent with Commonwealth legislation.

This leaves the Police choosing between potentially conflicting laws, and potentially facing professional standards investigation for misconduct and failure to execute duties if they apply the wrong one.

There is no clarity on whether the "small quantities" of drugs are mixed-weight or pure weight. Is it 1 gram of pure heroin? Or can I carry 2 grams, and cut it down by 50 per cent?

And in any case, how are police meant to tell? Will they all carry scales and purity testing kits now?

What is the result?

As AFP Deputy Commissioner Gaughan said, when police see someone doing a line of coke:

… historically, they may have intervened; they are probably not going to now.

As ACT Policing described in an inquiry submission, the decriminalisation of drugs does not of itself allow individuals to be connected with a health-led response. There is a real concern that the health services just aren't there.

And in the meantime, as they pointed out, drug use can be a driver of crime.

But perhaps more importantly, these decriminalised drugs themselves are incredibly harmful.

The ACT Law Society said, quote:

… we do not support the decriminalisation of any quantity of ice, given the threat such poses to public safety.

They referenced a position statement from the Australian Medical Association, which said:

There is clear medical evidence that methamphetamine, and particularly crystal methamphetamine ('ice') is a very harmful drug at the individual, community and societal levels.

Methamphetamine is not a 'recreational', 'soft' or 'party' drug and should never be referred to as such. Every effort must be made to avoid normalising methamphetamine use or minimising its harmful effects.

Acute methamphetamine psychosis is one of the most damaging health consequences of methamphetamine use. Acutely, it presents a major safety issue for health car e staff and the intoxicated patient and his or her family.

But for some baffling reason, the Labor-Greens government in the ACT has decided it is a good idea to release ice into the streets of Canberra.

We know ice-induced psychosis leads to violent rages.

According to the Government's own advice on the dangers associated with ice:

High doses of ice and frequent use can cause 'ice psychosis', which can last a few days, causing: severe paranoid delusions and hallucinations, and unusual, aggressive or violent behaviour.

Those rages risk the safety and welfare of emergency services workers, health professionals and bystanders.

And the suppliers of these hard drugs are organised crime figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs. They are the real beneficiaries of these laws.

The case for federal intervention

President, this Bill responds to the egregiously bad public policy outcomes of decriminalising ice and other hard drugs.

But it also concerns raised by the Australian Border Force and Australian Federal Police about the need for a national approach, and about the cross-border impacts of the ACT legislation.

Because the ACT drug decriminalisation laws create a problem that extends beyond Canberra's border. It is a national problem, but the Prime Minister is doing nothing.

As a spokesman for the Australian Border Force said:

Effective drug policy reform requires all jurisdictions to work together to ensure the policy is holistic, co-ordinated and aligned to a national approach that addresses supp ly, harm and demand reduction.

The AFP is on the record saying the changes would lure recreational drug users into Canberra and spark an increase in drug-related deaths.

In the words of Deputy Commissioner Gaughan, it would be, quote, "naive not to think people won't come down, even for a weekend, to get on the coke and not worry about the cops".

Make no mistake, these laws will help line the pockets of criminals and organised crime groups, who will be lining up to sell to drug users in Canberra to meet the increased demand.

They will send a clear signal to motorcycle gangs and organised crime all along the Hume Highway.

But the jurisdictional issues and unintended consequences don't stop there.

Up until now the Commonwealth Government has applied ACT criminal laws in a range of circumstances. We trusted the ACT to adopt a sensible approach to crime.

It now appears that this trust has been misplaced. As ACT Policing expressly noted:

The current Bill would apply to the [Jervis Bay Territory]. Laws applying in this context may also apply on certain flights under the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 (Cth).

This raises further concerns.

Under the Crimes at Sea Act, criminal laws in Jervis Bay also apply on Australian ships, and to Australian citizens on foreign ships, outside what is called the "adjacent area". Roughly speaking, this is a reference to areas outside Australian waters.

The question has been raised: as a result of these ACT laws, can Australian citizens now carry ice on ships in international waters, faced with nothing more than the threat of a $100 fine?

Have Andrew Barr and Rachel Stephen-Smith now unwittingly created a cruise ship drug charter?

What an absurd situation.

Who will suffer as a result?

President, I don't want these ridiculous outcomes to distract from the very real harms of this badly thought-out law.

Three groups will pay for the ACT Government's cavalier approach to drug policy.

The first group will be the people who travel down the Hume Highway hoping to experience the ACT's party lifestyle. For many, it will end in addiction and heartache and for some, death.

The second group who will pay are the first responders, emergency workers and bystanders who find themselves facing a person with ice-induced psychosis.

The final group who will pay are the families. Only misery will result from this terrible new law.

Conclusion

The ACT drug law is a bad law.

It must be thrown out, in the interests of all Canberrans, and all Australians.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Cadell, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 16 October 2023, the following documents:

(a) any ministerial briefing notes, emails, executive minutes, memos or correspondence relating to the internal review into the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project from 1 March 2023 to 12 September 2023; and

(b) any ministerial briefing notes, emails, executive minutes, memos or correspondence relating to the development and delivery of the 'major projects reset' and 'review and reset process' into the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project from 1 March 2023 to 12 September 2023.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that in response to orders for the production of documents nos 306 and 307, relating to ACCC monitoring of the domestic airline industry and the distribution of Goods and Services Tax revenue, the Treasurer advised that the 'requests' are being progressed and that he expects to be able to respond to the orders as soon as practicable;

(b) the Senate reiterates the importance of responding to orders for the production of documents in a timely manner;

(c) if orders nos 306 and 307 have not been complied with by Friday, 13 October 2023, the Minister representing the Treasurer be required to attend the Senate after motions to take note of answers on Monday, 16 October 2023, to provide an explanation of not more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion 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 5 minutes each.

The question is that general business notice of motion 339, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on the Cost of Living be amended as follows:

After paragraph (4)(c), insert:

(d) if a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the Chair appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting. If the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) orders for the production of documents nos 229, 253 and 315 relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Financial Sustainability Framework have not been complied with, and

(ii) it has twice rejected the public interest immunity claim made by the Government in relation to orders 229 and 253, noting the significant public interest in disclosing the documentation relating to the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework; and

(b) until the Senate resolves that the orders have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion 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 5 minutes each.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion. We've complied with all orders referred to in the motion to the greatest extent possible. This is a matter that is being actively negotiated and discussed with states and territories and the Commonwealth. This has been explained to Senator Steele-John. The government does not believe it's reasonable to divert time from the work of the Senate by requiring ministerial attendance, as would be the case if this motion passed. It does require ministerial attendance every Monday of every sitting week, as I understand. It would be highly unusual for that to be supported by this place. Ministers are available in question time every sitting day to provide an explanation of government action in connection with this matter, and there are a number of other ways in which we continue to discuss matters relating to the NDIS. The government will not be supporting this motion.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 342 standing in the name of Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator Cox

Community Affairs Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiries into the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 and Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Participating member: Senator Rice

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Introduction

The Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill may seem unassuming and modest, but make no mistake it will have an impact.

Each year Australian small-to-medium businesses and individuals spend an estimated 850,000 hours executing more than 3.8 million statutory declarations each and every year.

These documents are used to create reliable statements and attest to series of events for administrative, civil, commercial and private purposes. Whether it be to:

Historically, these documents have been strictly paper-based, requiring wet-ink signatures and in-person witnessing for valid execution.

Following the successful pivot to digital processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian community and businesses in particular expect Government to offer innovative digital solutions and pathways that modernise old systems and established processes.

The Bill will go some way to meeting those expectations.

The Bill will establish a framework for making Commonwealth statutory declarations that is fit for purpose, less cumbersome and reflects the way that Australians want to engage and communicate digitally.

The Bill will allow a statutory declaration to be executed in one of three ways:

The three methods of execution will be equally robust, and result in an equally valid and legally effective Commonwealth statutory declaration.

Importantly, the Bill responds to community feedback on the advantages to modernising the execution requirements for these solemn documents and in providing choice in relation to their execution.

The Bill will particularly benefit those who face barriers engaging with paper-based processes, such as those in rural, remote or regional parts of Australia, and those Australians experiencing low mobility or sensory concerns.

Those without adequate access to technological devices or internet connectivity, or those who simply prefer not to engage with the electronic or digital execution options, will not be disadvantaged by this Bill. The traditional, paper-based method of execution will continue to be available.

Electro nic execution

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that technology can be used successfully and reliably to facilitate the making of Commonwealth statutory declarations.

The Bill will make permanent the temporary measures put in place during the pandemic that allow a Commonwealth statutory declaration to be witnessed remotely via video link and signed electronically.

These measures were introduced to assist .individuals who, as a result of the pandemic, were either unable to meet in person to have a statutory declaration witnessed or could not meet in person because of stay-at- home or other restrictions on movement.

The temporary measures provided for the continuity of business operations and government services during the COVID period, without compromising the solemnity or integrity of the Commonwealth statutory declarations framework.

Stakeholders have told us that the temporary measures save time and money, and provide convenience and flexibility. This Bill will ensure Australians continue to enjoy the benefits of these temporary measures enabling electronic execution after they expire on 31 December this year.

Digital verification method

The Australian Government is committed to its vision of delivering simple, secure, and connected public services for all people and business through world class data and digital capabilities.

Since 2021, across various fora, business and community stakeholders have consistently told Government that they want use technology, such as digital identity frameworks, to engage with legal documents like statutory declarations in new ways.

Australians want to engage digitally to access Government services, and expect that Government is responsive to the changing technological expectations of the community.

This Bill responds to this feedback by introducing a digital verification method for making a Commonwealth statutory declaration.

The economic case for allowing statutory declarations to be executed digitally is also strong. Research undertaken in2021 estimated that digital execution could result in time and cost savings of over $156 million per annum across the economy.

The Bill will allow a person to leverage their Digital Identity to make a statutory declaration, end-to-end online, on their computer, smartphone or other portable device.

Framework

To future proof the Act, the Bill will provide a framework that will set out the requirements to execute a Commonwealth statutory declaration through digital verification, with technical requirements and conditions to be prescribed by regulation.

The framing of these provisions is important, noting the ever-evolving nature of technology and the need for the Government to respond quickly to these changes as they arise.

Requirements

Like the other methods of execution, the digitally verified statutory declaration will require use of the prescribed form, that must be signed by the declarant.

Unlike the other methods, there will be no requirement that the declaration be witnessed, in-person or via audio-visual link.

Instead a number of requirements and conditions will be imposed by the framework, through the Bill and through Regulations, that together achieve the legal purposes behind witnessing and provide legal certainty and surety to requesting entities. These include:

Identity verification

Evidence of execution

Through robust technological processes, the digital option will negate the need for physical witnessing while still satisfying the underlying rationale for witnessing requirements.

Safeguards

The Government recognises that it must ensure that any digital option produces a legally effective document within appropriate safeguards that mitigate against fraud and the misuse of personal information.

Statutory declarations may contain a large volume of personal information and this Bill introduces new ways of executing statutory declarations that engages with technological services. The Bill therefore contains a number of safeguards to protect Australian's personal information, and maintain confidence in the framework, including:

The provision enabling the Minister to prescribe further standards that a prospective digital service must meet will provide the ability to require:

Being accredited under the TDIF will ensure that entities meet strict requirements for privacy protection, security, risk management and fraud control. The AGDIS has been designed to protect privacy and security so that the individual is able to control their personal information.

This means that, at least at first, the Government will be able to prescribe myGov as an approved online platform and myGovlD as an approved identity service able to verify a declarant's identity to a prescribed identity proofing level.

Through prescribing entities and requirements, the Bill will have the flexibility to adapt and grow with any expansion of the AGDIS to the private sector and states and territories. However, noting that digitally verified statutory declarations are a first of its kind, the Government would carefully consider the appropriateness of prescribing other providers.

As I mentioned, copies of statutory declarations and personal information associated with the declaration will not be stored on the approved online platform or any other database. The approved online platform will only keep the minimum de-identified data required to verify execution in accordance with the requirements in the Bill.

Australians Will be able to be confident that the digital option is robust and reliable, and that their personal information is secure and protected.

Conclusion

The Bill modernises and re-imagines how individuals and businesses engage with solemn documents and, through extension. with the Australian Government.

This Bill will provide the framework for a stand-alone digital statutory declaration execution service that will leverage established Australian Government digital infrastructure to allow Australians to safely and securely make a statutory declaration end-to-end online.

Consistent with the principle of consent that underpins the Australian Government Digital ID System, the Bill will also continue to provide options from which Australians can choose based on their personal circumstances and preferences, including electronic execution and traditional paper-based execution.

This Bill will respond to how Australians want and expect to engage and communicate digitally with Government by providing options to make Commonwealth statutory declarations facilitated by technology. This Bill is an important milestone in driving the digitisation of government services. It will deliver a world-class, simple and secure public service for all Australians.

Debate adjourned.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 18 October 2023.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill seeks to amend the qualification criteria for the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment as outlined in the Social Security Act 1991.

In recent years we have seen more intense floods, cyclones, bushfires and storms. These disasters have taken a physical, emotional and financial toll on all Australians. Communities have been destroyed. Homes, and tragically, lives have been lost.

Ensuring that individuals across Australia are supported in the aftermath of these disasters is critical to the recovery of communities.

The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, or AGDRP, is one of many support mechanisms the Australian Government provides to disaster-affected communities. The AGDRP provides short term, one-off financial assistance to eligible Australians.

It offers a helping hand in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, and has assisted tens of thousands of impacted Australians in recent years.

The payment—$1000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child—is delivered by Services Australia. It helps with the purchase of essential items like food for the family, or to replace damaged household items, clothing, school items or toys—whatever is needed in the immediate aftermath of an event to help Australians and their families to recover.

This amendment will support faster and more efficient assessment of online claims for those who have been adversely affected by major disaster. This is achieved by legislating objective criteria on which to assess claims for AGDRP to support increased use of automatic decision-making.

It is critical that Services Australia can process claims quickly in the event of a major disaster. This amendment will help achieve that for Australian citizens and certain visa holders who have spent a particular amount of time in Australia, and/or care for a child or children who are adversely affected by a major disaster, before the major disaster is declared.

These amendments will support Services Australia to deliver payments to those who qualify for the payment within days, rather than weeks or months.

The amendment, if passed, will allow the Emergency Management Minister to determine, by notifiable instrument, an amount of time that an applicant must be in Australia before a major disaster to qualify for a payment. For now, the Government intends to require that a person must have been in Australia for 13 weeks of the last 19 weeks prior to the disaster.

This test ensures that support goes to Australians who are living here and contributing to their community. It is also consistent with the test used for some other payments under the Social Security Act.

The amendment also makes some changes to how the payable rate for AGDRP is calculated in respect of a person who qualifies for a payment and has a child, or children, in their care. These amendments are intended to support quicker processing of payments that include children.

These amendments are not intended to reduce or increase the number of individuals who are eligible for AGDRP.

This Bill makes amendments to facilitate faster processing of claims. It means a greater number of impacted Australians will be able to access financial support quickly after a major disaster.

The next High Risk Weather Season is due to begin in October. We bring this Bill to Parliament for its urgent consideration because we know that this is likely to be the first significant fire season since Black Summer. Disaster preparedness is critical to our democratic resilience and we're doing everything we can to be as prepared as possible at every level.

While the Seasonal Outlook predicts more fast-moving grass and scrub fires rather than the longer forest fires experienced in 2019-20, after a few seasons of intense rainfall and floods, we know that that these outlooks bring a lot of stress for communities.

Disasters will happen in this country. With climate change, weather conditions will become more extreme and disasters will happen more frequently. This is a reality we cannot ignore and we must be as prepared as possible for future events.

That is why this Government is committed to improving the way in which we deliver the assistance we provide.

This Bill is a further step in that process.

It provides the Government with greater ability to quickly and efficiently support communities affected by disasters, when the scale of disaster is such that Australian Government help—beyond that delivered by the state or territory government—is required.

The Australian Government stands ready to support disaster ravaged communities, providing the support they need to help them get back on their feet—and with this Bill—we are ensuring we provide that support as quickly as we possibly can.

I commend the Bill to the chamber.

I rise to indicate the coalition's support for the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023. I will make some very brief comments on the bill. What this bill seeks to do is actually improve and streamline the processes for the very important disaster recovery payments that are provided as federal assistance in times of disaster, including the disaster recovery payments and the disaster recovery allowance, which is a key case in point. These payments are provided for through Services Australia, and I commend and thank Services Australia for their very efficient processing of applications in times of disaster. Often, for families impacted by natural disaster, these payments provide them with the capacity to put food back on the table after they've lost nearly everything.

I commend the government for undertaking a review of the processes and identifying where we can make the processes faster and more efficient—specifically allowing the minister to identify the time for which a person must have been living in Australia before they are eligible to be granted these payments—and also for addressing some anomalies in the formulae for how carers were dealt with under this bill. I commend the government for their work. We will be supporting this through the chamber.

I rise to speak to the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023. This bill will allow people who have been impacted by natural disasters to get support faster. Over the past years, Australia has witnessed how heatwaves, fires and floods are threatening lives and destroying communities. When people have had their lives and their communities disrupted by these events, it's often impossible for them to return to employment, and frequently people find themselves without the means to support themselves or their families, let alone rebuild their lives, which is why, of course, the disaster recovery payment is so important. Looking forward, we're expecting to have the most significant bushfire season since the Black Summer fires in 2019 and 2020, which poses an enormous risk to Australian communities. It is critical that people be able to access financial support like the government's disaster recovery payment during this time, which is why the Greens are supporting the fast passage of this bill.

This bill supports the automation of the process of accessing claims. I want to note that, while we support a faster process, we are always wary of automation in our social security system. We have had one robodebt. We cannot afford another one, which is why the Greens will be keeping a close eye on the automation process involved in processing the Australian government disaster recovery payment and we will continue to scrutinise it in our social security system.

The Greens know, however, that supporting people during natural disasters doesn't stop with a one-off payment. We must also support resilient communities, and a key way of doing that is ensuring that no-one is living in poverty and that people have access to adequate, safe and affordable housing, because natural disasters not only threaten lives but also have devastating consequences that extend beyond the immediate event. People find themselves displaced, struggling to make ends meet and facing the daunting task of rebuilding their lives.

As the chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, in our inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia, I have heard story after story about the devastating impact of poverty on individuals and communities and the compounding impact that this has in the wake of natural disasters. In February this year, the inquiry heard from people in Lismore about the ongoing impacts of the devastating floods in 2022. During the inquiry, the committee heard from a range of local community services and organisations. We heard that, at the time, thousands of people who used to own or rent their homes before the flood crisis had since been left homeless or with inadequate housing. North Coast Community Housing told the committee that, at the time of the hearing, you could drive from Lismore up the highway to the Tweed, and at any one of those rest stops along the way you would see up to 20 or 30 cars each night with people sleeping in them.

We heard that rents have been rapidly rising in the region, making it even more difficult for people displaced by the floods to find safe, secure and affordable accommodation for themselves and their families. The inquiry also repeatedly heard how the inadequacy of income support payments is impacting people's abilities to survive before, during and after the floods. We've got to be looking after people, and not just with the immediate disaster relief payments. We have to have measures in place so that they are looked after well after the floods have gone. One Nimbin resident, Chibo, shared his story about the gruelling nature of being unemployed and having to survive on Centrelink. He said:

… I'm normally a very positive, joyful person who tries to inspire my community as well as the young people I do sports with. I have a positive, the-glass-is-half-full attitude. But I must say, I've never felt so mentally tortured as when I was unemployed, starting with Centrelink treating you like you're the last dirt from the street. Just coming into the whole situation—and I think a few people pointed it out in front of you here today—really impacts on your lifestyle, on your nutrition level, on anything. As soon as something goes 'pop' which wasn't being calculated for, like if you have a car and you have one tyre problem or something, that's $50 to $150, depending on the car and tyre size. That just throws you out while you were maybe saving up for getting the fridge repaired or something. It is such a stressful state.

Our inquiry highlighted the need for adequate social security, with many of those impacted by the Lismore floods left in long-term homelessness. Rents in the region have also been significantly increased, which, coupled with rising interest rates and a lack of rental caps, have priced many residents out of returning home. Additionally, of course, we know that so-called natural disasters are becoming more and more common due to the climate crisis, and we know that the costs of those natural disasters are being disproportionately borne by people living in poverty. Creating resilient communities means supporting people before and after natural disasters, and it means raising the rate of income support, abolishing mutual obligations and ensuring that our social services are well funded to deal with these kinds of disasters.

On climate, the climate crisis is putting lives at risk right now. We've got to be going far beyond just natural disaster relief payments. The science is clear: every tonne of coal and gas burnt increases the intensity and the speed of changes to our climate, which means more floods, more intense storms and more rainfall in already wet areas. Climate change is exacerbating the frequency and severity of natural disasters. The government, Labor, the Liberal Party and the Nationals can no longer keep their heads in the sand. Climate change is here, and we need to be taking the action that the science demands. That's no new coal and gas. It's reducing our carbon pollution by at least 75 per cent by 2030. Australia is facing climatic conditions we have never experienced before, with bushfires exacerbated by drought, higher temperatures and earlier and longer summers.

These so-called natural disasters are only going to get worse unless we take the urgent and appropriate action, the scientifically led action, to reduce our carbon pollution to zero as quickly as possible. The Australian government disaster recovery payment is undoubtedly a lifeline for those affected by natural disasters, but we must acknowledge it's also a reactive measure. To create truly resilient communities, we need to take a proactive approach. We need to stop the mining and burning of coal and gas and oil, otherwise all our lives are at risk. Future generations deserve to live not just on the lifeline of a disaster relief payment; they deserve a safe climate future. Australia must join world leaders and pledge to phase out coal and gas, and the huge subsidies that are propping up our fossil fuel corporations. There's still time to avert the worst of the crisis if we do this, which is why the Greens are calling for the government to increase natural disaster preparedness funding to $600 million a year and to fund $7.8 billion in renovation and home building grants to help local communities build and upgrade critical infrastructure that reduces natural disaster impacts.

Lifting funding for emergency services, and natural disaster preparedness and response, is a basic and essential step in building resilience. We need to see the decisive and immediate action to address climate stressors. We are in the midst of a climate emergency. Without an urgent reduction in our carbon pollution, we are risking catastrophe. To do nothing is to risk everything. Fossil fuels have to stay in the ground if we want any real hope of reducing emissions and preventing or reducing the number of natural disasters.

In conclusion, the Greens will be supporting the fast passage of this bill today in support of communities in which change is urgently needed. The housing and cost-of-living crises are only worsening and have been exacerbated in areas hit with climate disasters. People without adequate government support are struggling to make ends meet, let alone rebuild their communities. Communities across the country are facing dire circumstances in the middle of a climate crisis. Without affordable housing or sufficient Social Security, people on low incomes have zero capacity to recover from disasters. In supporting this bill today, I ask the government to see that poverty and climate are the clearly interconnected issues that they are. As well as taking this action of increasing the speed with which people can access disaster recovery payments, we need to be taking the bigger and proactive climate action to prevent further irreparable damage to our climate and our people.

I thank the senators who have contributed to this debate. The Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to ensure we can continue to support Australians when times are tough. The Australian government Disaster Recovery Payment offers a helping hand in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster and has assisted tens of thousands of impacted Australians in recent years. Ensuring that individuals across Australia are supported in the aftermath of these disasters is critical to the recovery of communities. The amendments proposed by this bill will provide the government with greater ability to quickly and efficiently support communities affected by disasters when the scale of the disaster requires Australian government assistance beyond that provided by the state or territory governments.

It is important that we get these changes in place before the next higher-risk weather season, which formally starts on 1 October 2023. Services Australia needs to be able to process claims quickly during disaster responses. The amendments proposed by the bill will help achieve that for Australian citizens and certain visa holders who have spent a period of time in Australia before the major disaster, and who care for a child or children who are adversely affected by major disasters. This bill deserves support, and I thank both the coalition and the Greens party, who have indicated support of this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill proposes to amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to enable a sole Commissioner or the Chair of a multi-member royal commission that is permitted to hold private sessions to authorise, in writing, a suitably qualified, experienced and senior member of staff of the royal commission to hold private sessions. A member of staff who is authorised for this purpose will be called an Assistant Commissioner.

Private sessions

Part 4 of the Royal Commissions Act enables certain royal commissions to hold private sessions. Private sessions were first established for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to enable individuals to tell their experience about the highly sensitive and personal matters into which the Royal Commission was inquiring, in a trauma-informed and less formal setting than a hearing. Subsequently, royal commissions prescribed by the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019 have been able to utilise private sessions. This includes the two current royal commissions, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

Participation in a private session is voluntary and participants have similar protections to witnesses. The information that participants give is not considered as evidence and it is not taken on oath or affirmation. There are strict limitations on the use and disclosure of that information, which apply both during and after a royal commission's inquiries.

Currently under the Act, only a sole Commissioner, the Chair of a multi-member royal commission, or another Commissioner who is authorised in writing by the Chair, may conduct private sessions.

Resourcing and cost implications of private sessions

Private sessions have implications for the resourcing, cost and constitution of a royal commission. Amending the Act to enable a suitably qualified, experienced and senior staff member to be authorised as an Assistant Commissioner to conduct private sessions will provide more flexibility to royal commissions to conduct their inquiry. It will assist the sole Commissioner or Chair of a multi-member royal commission to ensure resources are used appropriately and that the inquiry is conducted in an effective and efficient manner, while still enabling a private session participant to have their private session conducted by a suitably qualified, experienced and senior member of staff.

The amendments

The Bill proposes amendments to Part 4 of the Act to introduce a new definition of 'Assistant Commissioner' into the Act and related amendments to enable an Assistant Commissioner to hold private sessions for royal commissions, whether they are constituted by a sole Commissioner or multiple Commissioners.

The proposed role of an Assistant Commissioner is solely to hold private sessions, as authorised in writing by the sole Commissioner or Chair of the royal commission. An Assistant Commissioner will not be authorised to undertake any other role or to exercise any powers of a Commissioner for the royal commission.

The proposed amendments outline how and when an Assistant Commissioner can be authorised to hold private sessions. They provide that the Chair of a royal commission or a sole Commissioner may authorise a person to be an Assistant Commissioner for the sole purpose of holding private sessions for the royal commission. The person must be a member of staff of the royal commission and the authorisation must be in writing. The Chair or a sole Commissioner of a royal commission can authorise a person to be an Assistant Commissioner if they consider that:

The sole Commissioner or Chair of a royal commission will determine whether circumstances exist that justify authorising an Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of holding private sessions for the royal commission. The sole Commissioner or Chair of a royal commission will also decide if the person to be authorised has suitable qualifications and experience and an appropriate level of seniority. The sole Commissioner or Chair should ensure that individuals who share their personal accounts in a private session feel confident in the process.

The proposed amendments make it clear that an Assistant Commissioner will only be appointed where such an appointment is justified. The provision may enable a royal commission to hold more private sessions over the duration of its inquiry than it otherwise might have, and therefore allow more people to engage with a royal commission and have their experience heard.

It may be that some individuals who wish to participate in a private session would prefer to share their personal accounts with the Chair of a royal commission or with a sole Commissioner—rather than with an Assistant Commissioner. By contrast, there may be individuals who would feel more comfortable participating in private sessions held by experienced members of a royal commission's staff who have specialist training in engaging with vulnerable people.

The proposed amendments would enable the Chair or sole Commissioner to take these preferences into account in determining whether circumstances exist that justify authorising an Assistant Commissioner to hold private sessions.

Protections

The amendments also provide that an Assistant Commissioner for a royal commission who holds private sessions for the royal commission has the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court.

An Assistant Commissioner will be performing the same role as a Commissioner when conducting a private session. As such, an Assistant Commissioner should be provided the same level of protection and immunity as a Commissioner. Subsection 7(1) of the Royal Commissions Act provides that a Commissioner shall have the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court in the exercise of his or her duty as a Commissioner.

A judge of the High Court enjoys judicial immunity, which means that no criminal or civil action can be brought against them for acts done within jurisdiction in the course of hearing and deciding a case that is before them. A judge of the High Court is also immune from being compelled to give evidence or disclose their decision making. This immunity will be extended to Assistant Commissioners under proposed section 6OEA.

Limitations and protections

This power to authorise an Assistant Commissioner is not able to be delegated and can only be used where the sole Commissioner or Chair considers that circumstances exist that justify the person holding private sessions.

Compatibility with Human Rights

This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The Bill promotes the right to privacy, the right to effective access to justice and the right to freedom of expression. It does not engage or limit the right to a fair trial and hearing.

Conclusion

This Bill will provide more flexibility to royal commissions to conduct their inquiry, and ensure resources are used appropriately and that the inquiry is conducted in an effective and efficient manner, while ensuring that individuals who wish to participate in private sessions in a less formal and trauma-informed setting are able to do so.

I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902. If passed by this parliament, it will change the act so that a royal commission could appoint an assistant commissioner to conduct private sessions with people who want to tell their story. This is a bill that will affect every current and future royal commission. If passed by the parliament, it will allow every royal commission that conducts private sessions to appoint an assistant commissioner.

In reality, this bill came about as a result of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and the community that it affects first and foremost will be our defence and veteran community. Each death by suicide in our defence and veteran community is a tragedy and the effects are far-reaching. We know that the effects of every death by suicide are felt by families, friends, parents, children, those who served alongside them and others in the community, and we know that the problem is far too prevalent in our defence and veteran community. Too many of our veterans and service men and women are dying. We owe it to them and to their families to hear their stories and to make the changes that will make a difference in the long-term. This bill goes some way to doing that, and we in the coalition will be supporting this bill.

If serving and ex-serving personnel who have lived with suicidality want to tell their stories to the royal commission, we will support them to do so. If the friends and families of those who have died are happy to talk in a private session and they're happy doing so with the assistant commissioner that this bill will create, they should be allowed to do so. We will do what we can in this place to ensure that they have that opportunity as soon as possible.

I would like to take a minute to reflect on what private sessions are and how this bill would affect them. Private sessions are a relatively recent addition to the Royal Commissions Act. The private sessions regime was introduced to support the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In 2019 the coalition amended the Royal Commissions Act to allow private sessions to be used in any other royal commission prescribed by regulations.

Private sessions are not a hearing of a royal commission and a person who appears at a private session for a royal commission is not a witness. The information that they provide is not part of the evidence given to the commission and commissioners cannot use the stories told in private sessions to make findings and recommendations. They are, as I have said, private.

There are strong protections in the Royal Commissions Act to ensure that the information given in a private session cannot be disclosed. The restrictions on the disclosure of information given in a private session allow people to come forward confidentially and without fear of reprisals. They mean that people who want to share their story can choose to remain anonymous. Importantly, the legislation ensures that the restrictions continue after the expiry of the royal commission. This legislative framework is designed to support a person in telling their story to a royal commission in a way that is beneficial to them. We recognise and acknowledge that these stories often include significant personal trauma and details that are difficult to speak about publicly.

So what does this bill do? Currently only a sole commissioner, the chair of a multimember royal commission or another commissioner who is authorised in writing by the chair may conduct private sessions. The idea of this bill is that it will authorise a person who is not a royal commissioner to hold a private session, and the person authorised to do so will be called an assistant commissioner. This is a senior member of staff who will be required to be suitably qualified and have the necessary experience, at the discretion of the sole commissioner or chair of the multimember royal commission. The commissioner or the chair of the royal commission must also consider the circumstances that exist that justify the person holding private sessions before the commission, and the bill gives the assistant commissioner the same protections and immunities that are provided to a justice of the High Court.

I think it's appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on the way that this bill came to be before this chamber today. The genesis of this bill was a request from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. On 15 May this year, the royal commission revealed that it had received more than 1,140 requests for private sessions prior to the closing date, which was 28 April this year. It's not surprising that they have been flooded with requests. As the royal commission itself noted, sitting down with current and former ADF members, their loved ones and their mates had been incredibly powerful. We know that at the time the royal commission released that information they had completed more than 470 one-on-one sessions with people with lived experience of suicide and suicidality, which helped to identify common issues, themes, risks and protective factors.

We also know from reports in the Guardian about four weeks ago that, several days before releasing that information, they'd written to the Prime Minister. The royal commission wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 May asking for its reporting date to be extended by 12 months, and that was not a request that was made lightly. The royal commission made a careful, considered and balanced request to seek more time so that they could do their job properly. It's not the first time that they have done this. When the royal commission first requested an extension to their reporting date, the coalition granted that extension.

We on this side of the chamber recognise that the royal commission's final report will not make good reading. It will be hard, it will be uncomfortable and it will call for change. We didn't establish the royal commission to avoid scrutiny. We established the royal commission so that it would do a job. When they asked for an extension to do that job properly, we gave it to them, because the issues here are too important to be treated lightly. In granting the extension, we recognised that, regardless of politics, it is in the interests of every Australian serving member and veteran and their families, and that must be prioritised. But the current government has taken a different approach. There was a significant delay in responding to that letter from the royal commission, and then the request for an extension was denied. So, as a fallback, this commission has resorted to working on 'alternative initiatives' to meet its original reporting date, and this bill is one of those alternative initiatives.

We absolutely recognise that this bill is intended to do some good, but we should reflect on the circumstances in which it has come to this place. We don't know whether the Prime Minister ever responded to the royal commission's letter, but we know what the royal commission put into its own statement on the issue:

On 1 August, we were informed that the extension had not been granted and the Royal Commission's final report is expected to be handed down, as planned, by 17 June 2024.

In the spirit of charity and decency, we will give the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did respond appropriately to the commission, but for the benefit of the Hansard and everyone in this chamber, on behalf of the opposition, let me use this opportunity to say what is not appropriate.

It is not appropriate to sit on a letter from a royal commission that asks for more time to hear from veterans and their families. It is not appropriate to wait for three months before saying no and then turn to this chamber and ask for a bill to be rushed through in a single sitting. This bill is a matter of urgency, and we are now asked by the Attorney-General's office to pass it in a week, but the urgency is of the government's making. It is a direct result of their own delay in not answering the commission's request for almost three months. The government has asked the commission to accept this bill that we're debating here today as an alternative, and I think it is suffice to say that it didn't have to be this way. This bill could have been brought on much earlier. An agreement could have been made to extend the time frame of the commission. But these are the choices that this government has made.

We in the opposition will take a different approach. We will let the record show that we support this bill, but we also would have supported the extension of time requested by the commission. We would do so because, as I said in my initial remarks on this bill, we recognise that it is veterans and their families who must come first. I certainly hope that this bill does the good that it is intended to do. As I said on behalf of the opposition, we will be supporting this bill today. I do commend it to the Senate.

I thank Senator Chandler for her contribution on this bill. The Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to enable a sole commissioner or the chair of a multimember royal commission that is permitted to hold private sessions to authorise in writing a suitably qualified, experienced and senior member of staff of the royal commission to hold private sessions. A member of staff who is authorised for this purpose will be called an assistant commissioner.

The bill introduces a new definition of 'assistant commissioner' into the act and makes related amendments to enable an assistant commissioner to hold private sessions for royal commissions, whether they are constituted by a sole commissioner or multiple commissioners. The amendments make it clear that an assistant commissioner will only be appointed where such an appointment is justified. This may enable a royal commission to hold more private sessions over the duration of its inquiry than it otherwise might have and therefore allow more people to engage with the royal commission and have their experience heard. The role of an assistant commissioner is solely to hold private sessions as authorised in writing by the sole commissioner or chair of the royal commission. An assistant commissioner will not be authorised to undertake any other role or to exercise any powers of a commissioner for the royal commission.

This bill will provide more flexibility to royal commissions to conduct their inquiry, enabling more people to tell their stories in private session. It will also ensure that individuals who wish to participate in private sessions can do so with a person with whom they feel most comfortable sharing their experience. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In continuation on my contribution on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023: the fact that the Albanese government is overseeing plummeting bulk-billing rates at a time when Australians are struggling to pay bills just proves how unbelievably important it is to ensure that the viability of Medicare is safeguarded into the future. The coalition will always be committed to supporting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare to ensure that all Australians have access to the critical support provided by Australia's healthcare system into the future. In fact, this bill continues the reforms started by the former coalition government to strengthen the PSR's review mechanisms, particularly for claims relating to the MBS.

We were glad to see the government pass the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Act 2022 in December. This was a coalition bill that we proudly introduced in the 46th Parliament to strengthen the compliance powers of the PSR and add a degree of flexibility to the PSR's ability to address any inappropriate practice. We understood that it is vital that there continues to be rigorous and effective health practitioner compliance to protect the financial integrity of Medicare. We also have a strong track record of supporting our hardworking healthcare practitioners and peak bodies to correctly claim health payments with a clear focus on education, engagement and consultation. Australians rightly expect that their tax dollars are being used appropriately and effectively, particularly when they're being spent on our healthcare system, which is facing increasing pressure. We need to support practitioners who are doing the right thing by the taxpayer and by their patients but we also need to identify the healthcare practitioners who are not acting in good faith.

We acknowledge that this bill builds on the coalition's work to strengthen the PSR and protect the viability of Medicare through additional reforms; however, we do have concerns about the lack of consultation that was undertaken prior to the introduction of this bill, particularly in regard to the review on which these reforms are based. Time and time again we are concerned by the government's refusal to allow for appropriate levels of consultation on their policies, to follow proper process. Dr Philip stated in his report:

Given the timeframes set for this Review, my formal consultation with stakeholders has been necessarily limited, supplemented by informal discussions with participants, and I have based most of my work on desktop analysis.

It is really disappointing that the limited time frames for this review have acted as a significant barrier to Dr Philip's ability to undertake thorough consultation. That is why the opposition saw it as critical to gather more information from stakeholders on the impact of these reforms through a committee process. As we noted in our comments, we support this legislation but we do have concerns over the failure of the Albanese Labor government to properly consult with relevant stakeholders. This is a well-entrenched theme of Labor. They don't properly consult with people who'll be most impacted by their policies, they don't do adequate modelling, and they continue to ram policy through this place without properly considering the implications. Any consultation that is performed by this government seems to be merely a political exercise. Their focus continues to be on the headline, never on the detail.

We also note the concerns, raised by industry bodies through the submission process, relating to the removal of the requirement for the Chief Executive Medicare to consult with stakeholder groups prior to issuing a notice to produce documents. Not only has the government failed to ensure there is thorough consultation on this bill; the changes contained in this bill also reduce consultation. As expressed by the Australian College of Rural and Remote medicine:

Whilst removing input from the relevant professional body may well streamline the process, this is potentially detrimental to the practitioner who is required to produce documents under this section and is not in keeping with the recommendations from the Review.

The coalition will not stand in the way of good policy, but upholding adequate consultation in this area is critical to protecting the integrity and viability of Medicare and our world-class healthcare system.

Once again, the coalition will support this bill and the proposed changes, in the interests of increasing transparency of the Professional Services Review scheme; however, we put on record our concerns about the removal of consultation and engagement with stakeholders.

nator STEELE-JOHN () (): I am speaking on behalf of the Greens in support of this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. The bill removes the requirement for the AMA to agree to the appointment of the Director of the Professional Services Review, PSR, on the basis that the current arrangement is inconsistent with public expectations regarding the independence of the PSR. It also amends consultation requirements for appointing other statutory office holders of the PSR to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly, rather than via the AMA. They are both very sensible changes.

This bill is the result of recommendations from the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance, better known as the Philip review. The report rightly points out that the legislation governing systems processes and tools is currently not fit for purpose and, without significant attention, will result in significant levels of inefficiency and fraud. The PSR is responsible for reviewing the Medicare billing practices of over 150,000 health professionals; however, it examines only about a hundred cases of fraud and inappropriate billing every 12 months, which is less than 0.07 per cent of those it monitors.

The recommendation to remove the AMA's veto power is consistent with public expectations. The PSR should be, in our view, independent and trusted by the public. This measure is an important step, in the view of the Greens, towards the modernisation of Medicare.

I thank both the opposition and the Greens for their support of this bill. The Medicare program provides universal access for all Australians to most healthcare services. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 is a timely and appropriate response to issues raised in the independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance.

The bill removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association over the appointment of the director of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR. The bill also amends consultation requirements for appointing other statutory officeholders of the PSR, enabling direct consultation with relevant peak bodies. This will ensure the regulator can operate with impartiality and independence and improve public perception of the fairness and integrity of Medicare. The bill also allows the appointment of associate directors of the PSR, which will provide for alternative decision-makers to manage conflicts of interest, unexpected absences and workload pressures for the director. This will allow PSR members to be finalised more quickly in some cases.

One of the key issues identified in the review of Medicare integrity and compliance was the length of time the compliance processes currently take. Both practitioners under review and the community will benefit from faster resolution of compliance issues.

Finally, the bill will remove the need for engagement with stakeholder groups before requesting documents, which will improve processes used to audit payments relating to Medicare services. This will also strengthen and speed up Medicare compliance functions without limiting the types of documents a person may provide during an audit. The person being audited will continue to have an opportunity to make submissions about the compliance matter and provide any relevant information or documents. The measures in this bill will strengthen the regulatory framework supporting the integrity of Medicare to ensure all Australians can continue to receive necessary health services. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

CAROL BROWN (—) (): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

This package of legislation—the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023—delivers on a recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, established under the former coalition government in 2019, to create a national occupational respiratory disease register in response to the growing incidence of silicosis among Australian workers.

Silicosis is an irreversible fibrotic lung condition caused by inhaling very fine silica dust. While it is preventable, there is currently no cure. The coalition will support this package of legislation because it builds on the important work that the coalition commenced in government to address the worrying issue of occupational dust disease in Australia and respond to the growing incidence of silicosis. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 will create a legislative framework to establish and manage the national occupational respiratory disease registry, which will collect data on the incidence of respiratory diseases thought to be occupationally caused or exacerbated. The national registry will capture key details, including the place of business, industry, occupation and main job task where the exposures are believed to have occurred. The national registry will collate respiratory health data to assist in the detection of new and emerging threats to workers and respiratory health and inform incidence trend. The registry will also disclose information on occupational respiratory diseases in Australia to state and territory authorities, reflecting their ongoing roles and responsibilities in understanding and responding to occupational respiratory diseases in their jurisdictions.

The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 makes consequential amendments to existing federal legislation in order to support the effective implementation of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt protected information included in the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Register from disclosure under the act protecting individuals' privacy or commercial interests.

These bills deliver on the National Dust Disease Taskforce's recommendation to establish a national registry on this very important issue. All Australians, regardless of their occupation or how they are engaged, have a right to a healthy, safe, well-designed workplace. However, it is estimated that one-in-four people who work with silica products will develop silicosis. The rapid emergence of new cases of accelerated silicosis, particularly among those working with engineered stone, is of deep concern. That is why the former coalition government established the National Dust Disease Taskforce on 26 July 2019 as part of our $5 million election commitment. We committed to investigate the growing number of silicosis cases in individuals working in the industry and to develop a national approach for the prevention, early identification, control and management of occupational dust diseases in Australia.

In establishing the task force, the former coalition government committed $5.1 million to support its critical work including funding for research to better understand, prevent and treat preventable occupational lung diseases. This fund also included $1.6 million for the development of a national dust disease registry, and we recognise the government's decision to progress our commitment through the package of bills we are debating. The task force's final report was published on 12 July 2021 following extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders.

The former coalition government worked with the states and territories to develop a nationally coordinated all-of-government response to the task force's final report, which was endorsed on 4 April 2022. We also invested $11 million over four years as part of our 2022-23 budget to address key recommendations from the task force's final report. This funding package supported an enhanced focus on prevention activities and improved support for affected workers and their families, and strengthened the evidence base and research capabilities. We also supported upskilling and improving the expertise of medical professions in relation to dust diseases to ensure the right knowledge is available to provide adequate care and support to affected patients.

This package of bills complements all of the work we undertook in government to respond to this important issue, particularly to protect workers at risk from dust diseases across Australia. It is important that we recognise the work of former ministers Greg Hunt and Michaelia Cash.

The coalition remains strongly committed to reducing the incidence of silicosis and other dust diseases amongst workers and increase the quality of life for affected workers and their families. Given our longstanding commitment to this issue and our extensive work undertaken while in government, we recognise the importance of this legislation.

The national occupational respiratory disease register will play a critical role in addressing the growing instance of silicosis and other occupational respiratory dust diseases in Australia. Once again, the coalition will support this package of bills which builds on our work to address the increased incidence of silicosis and other occupational respiratory dust diseases in Australia.

The Greens are supportive of the establishment of a national dust disease registry to 'better protect and support workers and to recognise the incidence and severity of dust disease'. I want to note on the record the recommendations provided by Australia's leading public health organisations as to further amendments which could be made to improve this registry, specifically: that all occupational respiratory diseases found in the Safe Work Australia List of Deemed Diseases in Australia be prescribed and require notification to the registry upon diagnosis; that the annual public reports from the Commonwealth CMO be broadened to include occupation, main job task, industry and state; that, as a matter of priority, the registry be expanded to include, among other things, asbestosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mesothelioma, work related asthma and occupational lung infections; that the addition of multiple exposures in 'additional notification information' should be included in the 'minimum notification information'; and, finally, to remove the restriction, subject to worker consent and ethical approval, on researchers' access to information contained in section 2 of the bill. The Greens strongly support these initiatives to strengthen the registry.

We note the government's amendments to the explanatory memorandum, which go some way to further clarifying some of these measures. We urge the government to consult with state and territory governments regarding the expansion of the number of prescribed diseases on the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry as a matter of urgency.

On the topic of engineered stone, the Australian Greens have long supported a ban on the use of engineered stone in Australia. The evidence is crystal clear: manufactured stone is the 21st century's asbestos, and the federal parliament should be acting urgently to ban its importation and use. The Greens welcome a previous statement from the Albanese government that it wants to move towards a ban, but this cannot wait 12 months while more young workers are exposed to this deadly dust. Time is a critical factor here. We know that Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Tony Burke and his state and territory counterparts gave Safe Work Australia six months to investigate the prospect of prohibition of the substance. There seems to be a hesitancy to make the results of this report public. This needs to be done now. As assistant secretary Liam O'Brien of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has said:

We support governments releasing this report before ministers meet later this year so that there can be appropriate public scrutiny of this significant issue.

There can simply be no justification for this report to be kept hidden.

It is estimated that around 584,000 Australians are currently exposed to the impact of exposure to silica dust, which occurs when products containing this substance, such as stones, rocks, concrete and bricks, are processed by cutting, drilling or, indeed, grinding. A Curtin University study commissioned by the ACTU predicts that up to 103,000 workers will be diagnosed with silicosis and that 10,000 will develop lung cancer directly as a result of their exposure to silica dust—10,000 Australians. This is in a context where we are seeing dust related disease rise and continue to rise ever faster in Australia. This rise coincides with a government led infrastructure boom which includes a record number of multibillion-dollar road and tunnel projects across New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, all contexts in which we can reasonably expect workers may have been exposed.

Here are some devastating examples that have been put into the public arena and that I think are worthy to be placed on the Senate record today. One man speaking to the media, one of the many diagnosed with silicosis, reports now having a lung capacity of 40 per cent. He finds it hard to walk and talk at the same time. Another, just 31 years old, by the name of Josh Hunt, who started as an apprentice stonemason when he was just 15 and who worked at factories in Queensland, Melbourne and Sydney, said that the dust was so bad that he would blow stone out of his nose all weekend. Three years after leaving, he can still taste the dust that he would breathe in every day. He said: 'It has taken its toll; it has taken everything from me. I've got three daughters. Seeing them walk down the aisle or worrying about seeing them at their high school graduations in their dresses—I don't like to talk about that too much because it does make me quite upset.' This is somebody who is now considering the reality of missing those precious moments with his family because of his exposure.

Another worker, by the name of Tran, is dying of silicosis. He refers to his pills as 'waiting in line' to relieve him of some of his pain, and to enable him to interact with his friends. He also now carries an oxygen tank with him. At 56 years old, it takes all of his energy to point to the table next to him. He was told in August last year that he might have eight months to live. It has now been over a year since he was given that news; can you imagine being in that situation—thinking that every day, every moment you have, you're actively counting towards an end that you know is coming quicker than it should? This is an horrendous situation for anybody to be in, let alone somebody that has been exposed to something which is currently still legally usable and importable in Australia.

The Greens first called for a manufactured stone ban in 2020 after the New South Wales parliament inquiry into dust based diseases. Every day of delay is deadly. That's the pure and simple fact, and politicians and decision-makers have a duty to act with urgency. A simple ban needs to be the start of this process. We know that young tradies who have been working with manufactured stone and who get sick need quality medical support, and will likely require, and should justly receive, compensation. The Greens will continue to call on the government to pass legislation implementing a ban on engineered stone this year, in line with the calls of public health experts. I move:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) it is estimated that around 584,050 Australian workers are currently exposed to respirable crystalline silica, which occurs when products containing crystalline silica, such as stone, rocks, concrete and bricks, are processed via cutting, drilling or grinding;

(ii) Curtin University modelling projects around 10,000 Australians will develop lung cancer directly related to silica dust; and

(b) therefore agrees that the Labor Government should:

(i) urgently consider, in concert with State and Territory governments, a ban on the import and use of engineered stone in this term of Parliament; and

(ii) consult with State and Territory governments regarding the expansion of the number of prescribed diseases on the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry as a priority".

I rise to speak on the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the related bill. Silicosis is horrific. It's caused by breathing in silica dust, the kind of dust that's produced by engineered stone. Some of the dust particles are so small that they're invisible. You can't see them, but you can still inhale them. And when you do, they go deep into your lungs and can cause irreversible damage—but not right away. For most people, it takes years. Your lungs gradually become inflamed, then scarred and they develop nodules which prevent you from breathing freely. This can lead to complications like tuberculosis, bronchitis, kidney disease or even lung cancer. There's no cure; in some cases you manage with a mechanical breathing device—inn some cases your lungs harden from scarring so much that they simply can't take in enough oxygen.

Silicosis kills people and it's killing people here right now. We just don't have a good way of monitoring it. This bill establishes a national occupational respiratory disease registry. Its role will be to capture and catalogue information on respiratory diseases caused, or made, worse by work. It will measure the incidence of occupational respiratory diseases and where they took place down to a job's task level, up to a business level and all the way up to an industry level. It will monitor health data long-term.

Measuring what matters is a pretty basic standard for how governments should operate: if it matters to you, measure it. That's because without doing the work of collecting data and interpreting the trends it's telling us, we're left saying how terrible things are and how much worse they're getting, but don't really know what we're doing. Without numbers to back up a gut feeling, we end up flying blind. Without numbers, how are we supposed to tell if what we're doing is working to make things better? We have to measure how bad things are right now so we can see if we're making things better down the line.

But it's not just about measuring progress; it's also about detecting new and emerging threats. If we have baseline data that suddenly spikes in a particular industry in a particular state, this registry will be able to tell us at a granular level if that's a bit of random noise or a genuine threat. If you can catch a problem before it becomes a crisis, you end up saving lives. That is what this bill has the potential to do. It does not sit on its own, though, in a little vacuum. It complements a range of other related measures designed to eliminate occupational respiratory diseases altogether.

I support this initiative. I want it to go further, faster. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to this bill that expands its function in a way that I think government and the opposition would both support. This amendment is government policy, so I think it is pretty uncontroversial. This amendment is simply copying schedule 2 of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill and attaching it to this bill. I see no reason why the government should oppose it. After all, they wrote it. I see no reason for the opposition to oppose it, either. They commissioned the taskforce that came up with the recommendation that my amendment enacts. They accepted the recommendation as part of their official government response to the taskforce. It's their policy, too. My amendment simply enacts policy that the government wants to pass urgently and that the coalition supported when it was in government. It's an olive branch to the government. The question is will they take it?

Schedule 2 of the closing loopholes bill amends the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013, as the minister said in his second reading speech, 'to expand the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to eliminate silica related diseases in Australia'. Schedule 2 also expands the membership of the current Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council to include appropriate representation from employee and employer representatives and an expert in asbestosis or silica related matters. These are great measures. I have no issue with them. The government and I are on the same page here. I'd happily pass these measures today, which is what I'm hoping the Senate will do. The need for this amendment right now is because the bill from which it has been extracted is not going to pass this year. The government says it's urgent that the industrial relations changes in the closing loopholes bill be passed quickly to ensure the safety of workers. They point to the amendments made by schedule 2 of that bill as an example of why the bill needs to be passed in its entirety this year. They might be right about the bill needing to be passed in its entirety; we try to keep an open mind. But we on the crossbench haven't had time decide whether we agree. On this particular part of the bill, though, we don't need any more time. We agree. We should pass it today.

With my amendment, I'm giving the Senate an opportunity to do just that. The bills that are before us today, one of which I am seeking to amend, create a registry that will support the identification of the industries, occupations, job tasks and workplaces where there is a risk of exposure to respiratory-disease-causing agents. The national registry will require respiratory and occupational physicians to notify diagnoses of occupationally caused silicosis and will allow for the voluntary notification of other occupational respiratory diseases. Again, I think that these measures are great. I personally know someone who has silicosis from working at a factory in Penguin in Tassie. He's a nice young bloke. It's an awful disease, and I think we should do what can to eliminate it. What I'm doing with this amendment my part in doing just that.

It would be staggering if the government decided to vote against its own legislation. They can't say they need more time to consider it, because it's their own words. They can't say they oppose it, because it's their own policy. They can't say that they want to delay it, because we have all been told how important it is that this pass urgently. I imagine they would prefer it was never dealt with at all, and so they might argue that it's not possible to deal with it. They may say that this amendment isn't relevant or that it's not constitutional. What I'd say about constitutionality is that there's substantial precedent for the both the Labor Party and the coalition to increase the number of paid members appointed to panels or councils via amendments made in the Senate. If they think it's not relevant, I'd just say that it's enacting the recommendation made by the taskforce that the previous government commissioned and that this government has adopted. It's literally the recommendation directly underneath the one these bills are enacting. It's the same taskforce looking at the same issue on the same subject. If the government think that's irrelevant, they can make that case.

I want these bills to pass. I want my amendment to pass as well. If the government decide to not pass this bill because of this amendment, it will be because they prefer that neither passes. That is a decision for them to make. I cannot control how the Labor Party feels about this issue. I can only control how I feel about it. I feel like my amendment is worth passing. It's worth passing right now. I feel like the bill it seeks to amend is also worth passing. This is not an attempt to block or delay this bill from becoming law. If my amendment fails, I will support the bill. If my amendment succeeds, I will support the bill. So this bill is guaranteed to pass. The only way it could not is if my amendment were successful and the government decided they would rather do nothing than do more. I hope my amendment is successful. I hope the government decides to do more. I hope they take this opportunity to do it now.

Nobody should die for a shiny benchtop. That's what the Greens believe. Tragically, across this country, there are thousands of people working in the trades who are being exposed to manufactured stone. We know, as certainly as night follows day, that cutting the product, with its high silica content, will kill a proportion of those workers. Since 2019, the Greens have been calling for a ban on manufactured stone, a product that is very much the asbestos of the 21st century. Since 2019, one of the reasons we haven't got a ban on manufactured stone is the behaviour of Safe Work Australia, which has dragged the chain on setting national standards to keep the people working in this industry safe.

Time after time, Safe Work Australia has tried to come up with ways of safely handling a product that everybody knows is inherently lethal. If you look at the way in which you should deal with a hazard in the workplace—this is work health and safety legislation that Safe Work responsible for—the first response to a hazard in the workplace is, if it's possible, to remove the hazard. Don't put on PPE; don't come up with other safe-handling measures. If you can remove the hazard from the workplace, that's what the legal responsibility is—to remove the hazard. Why hasn't Safe Work led a national move to remove this hazardous product from our workplaces? It is because they simply haven't had the political direction from the previous government or from this government to do what's right. I've had some people suggest that Safe Work can't put a ban on manufactured stone because of constitutional limitations on what the federal parliament can do.

Ninety-nine per cent or more of this product is imported. It's imported from a handful of producers around the world, who are themselves involved in litigation with their workers and consumers and installers all across the globe. Many of them aren't able to get product liability insurance because insurers see this as the asbestos of the 21st century. They see another James Hardie coming down the line. Overwhelmingly, this product is imported. We know, when it comes onshore, this product is going to be cut in workshops where workers are going to be exposed to high silica dust. It's going to be installed in construction sites around the country and shaped and moulded where workers are going to be exposed to silica dust. We know that silica dust is going to gather in their lungs and, in hundreds or thousands of cases, lead to silicosis, which can literally be a death sentence for those workers. They choke on their own lungs.

What should the Commonwealth be doing? By all means, let's pass the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and get a register and find out across the nation where workers have been exposed to silicosis and where they've had diagnoses of silicosis. Let's do that. But the real thing the Commonwealth parliament should be doing—the real thing the Labor Party should be doing if it cares about working people—is immediately passing an importation ban on high-silica manufactured stone, and we could do that tomorrow. But, instead, we have Safe Work saying, 'Oh, no, let's have better tests to measure to a finer micron level the amount of silica dust in a workplace.' That won't work. We know it won't work because you can't measure down to the level of silica dust that is needed to create a safe workplace. They also say, 'You should only cut it using wet-cut technology.' We know that that is not going to work because there will always be workplaces that will cut corners and not have that technology on site. Once you cut it using wet-cutting technology, the dust dries out and can then be spread in the workplace anyhow.

Safe Work is not doing its job of keeping people safe. For three years, it's not been doing its job. In 2019, I was on a New South Wales inquiry that heard from unions. I particularly want to credit the work of the CFMEU, who have been consistent in this space. At a New South Wales, federal level and ACT level, the CFMEU has said its members should not be exposed to this dangerous product because it is killing them. The union has said to the New South Wales government 'put a ban on it' and the New South Wales government has failed. It said to the federal Labor government 'put a ban on it' and the federal Labor government has failed. Instead, we get this weak bill about finding out where the workers who are dying of silicosis are. That is Labor's response, not banning the importation of it but finding out where the young workers who are dying of silicosis are, so that different state compensation schemes can give them a payment and maybe pay their widows and their kids an ongoing payment. That's Labor's response and it is criminal.

I remember sitting in two distinct state inquiries into this when I was a state parliamentarian. I remember the young workers in their late 20s and early 30s who came to the inquiries and told us about their diagnoses, some assisted by oxygen, told us about their young families—their kids—and told us they had a terminal diagnosis because they had been exposed to high-silica manufactured stone.

When the Greens heard that evidence, we supported the call from the construction union, the CFMEU, for an immediate ban and we were shut down by the New South Wales government, which said, 'Safe Work Australia can handle that; they have an ongoing process in place.' We said 'Good luck with that; we want a ban.' What has Safe Work done? Now, 3½ years later, bugger all. They come up with this bill to have a register so we can see where the workers who are dying of silicosis are.

The Greens won't oppose this bill. We will support the bill. I commend the work of my colleague Senator Steele-John for making the bill a little bit better. But the CFMEU has said loud and clear that, if the federal government doesn't move and put the ban on by the middle of next year, it will move and put a national ban on using this deadly product. What's the federal government going to do then? Clamp down on the CFMEU for taking unlawful industrial action because it is trying to save the lives of its members? A national ban by the union on working with this dangerous product is coming 1 July next year, because the union knows what the Albanese government doesn't—that this is a dangerous lethal product.

I say, again, nobody should be dying for a shiny benchtop. No young worker should be dying for a shiny benchtop. This product has only been available since 2000 or 2001 in this country. We had kitchens before then. We had commercial fit-outs before then. This is an indulgence for a small handful of people who want a slightly cheaper shiny benchtop, and who are willing to see the people who shape it, work it and install it die for that. Why do we have a federal Labor government if not to heed the call of the CFMEU and ban this bloody product?

I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry will aid the detection of new and emerging threats to workers' respiratory health, inform incidence trends, help inform actions to be taken to reduce further workplace exposure, support research into occupational respiratory diseases and assist in targeting and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and prevention strategies. The national registry achieves this by capturing and sharing data, where appropriate, on the incidence of occupational respiratory diseases and their respiratory-disease-causing agents; the last and main exposures to agents that can cause respiratory disease, including the place of business, industry, occupation and job task; and respiratory health data.

Initially, silicosis will be the only prescribed occupational respiratory disease; however, the bill provides for other occupationally caused or exacerbated respiratory diseases to be prescribed occupational respiratory diseases by the minister after consultation with the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer and state and territory authorities. This ability to prescribe occupational respiratory diseases further to silicosis will allow the national registry to evolve to cater for new and emerging risks to the respiratory health of workers.

The creation of the national registry will better protect workers from silicosis and complement a wide range of other actions being taken by the government. A review of the operation of the registry will be undertaken within 12 months of its operation, including an evaluation of the privacy implications of the scheme in practice. I thank all senators for their participation in the debate, and I commend the bills to the Senate. I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bills. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

by leave—I move Jacqui Lambie Network amendments (1) and (2) to the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 on sheet 2113 together:

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

(2) Page 3 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Amendment of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013

Part 1 — Main amendments

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013

1 Title

Omit "Asbestos", substitute "Asbestos and Silica".

2 Section 1

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013", substitute "Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013".

Note: This item amends the short title of the Act. If another amendment of the Act is described by reference to the Act's previous short title, that other amendment has effect after the commencement of this item as an amendment of the Act under its amended short title (see section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).

3 Section 2A

Repeal the section, substitute:

2A Object of this Act

The object of this Act is to establish the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency to lead coordinated and national action to eliminate asbestos-related diseases and silica-related diseases in Australia by:

(a) fostering collaboration between:

(i) persons and bodies involved in the regulation, management and control of asbestos safety and silica safety; and

(ii) persons and bodies involved in dealing with issues related to asbestos-related diseases and silica-related diseases; and

(b) supporting and monitoring the implementation of the National Strategic Plans by the Commonwealth and State, Territory and local governments; and

(c) promoting national consistency in relation to asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases; and

(d) improving the state of knowledge and awareness of issues relating to asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases.

4 Section 3 (definition of Agency )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

Agency means the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency referred to in section 6.

5 Section 3

Insert:

Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency means the Agency referred to in section 6.

Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council means the Council referred to in section 28.

Asbestos National Strategic Plan has the meaning given by section 5A.

6 Section 3 (definition of Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council )

Repeal the definition.

7 Section 3 (definition of Chair )

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

8 Section 3

Insert:

Council means the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council.

9 Section 3 (definition of Council member )

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

10 Section 3 (definition of National Strategic Plan )

Repeal the definition.

11 Section 3

Insert:

National Strategic Plans means the Asbestos National Strategic Plan and the Silica National Strategic Plan.

Silica National Strategic Plan has the meaning given by section 5B.

silica safety includes, but is not limited to, matters relating to awareness, education and information sharing in relation to respirable crystalline silica and products that contain silica.

12 Part 1A

Repeal the Part, substitute:

Part 1A — National Strategic Plans

5A Asbestos National Strategic Plan

(1) The Asbestos National Strategic Plan is the plan with that namethat:

(a) aims:

(i) to eliminate asbestos-related diseases in Australia by preventing exposure to asbestos fibres; and

(ii) to support workers and others who are affected by asbestos-related diseases; and

(b) represents a commitment to implement an agreed set of strategic actions and national targets focussing on:

(i) identifying asbestos and preventing exposure risks, including through prioritised safe removal and effective waste management; and

(ii) improving awareness of asbestos safety and asbestos-related diseases; and

(iii) improving research and national data in relation to asbestos safety and asbestos-related diseases; and

(iv) facilitating international collaboration in relation to asbestos safety and asbestos-related diseases; and

(v) any other relevant priorities.

Note: The Asbestos National Strategic Plan is available on the Agency's website.

(2) The plan referred to in subsection (1) represents a commitment to implement an agreed set of strategic actions and national targets focussing on the priorities referred to in subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (v) only if the plan has been agreed to by at least 6 of the governments of the Commonwealth and each State and Territory.

5B Silica National Strategic Plan

(1) The Silica National Strategic Plan is the plan with that name that:

(a) aims:

(i) to eliminate silica-related diseases in Australia by preventing exposure to respirable crystalline silica; and

(ii) to support workers and others who are affected by silica-related diseases; and

(b) represents a commitment to implement an agreed set of strategic actions and national targets focussing on:

(i) eliminating or minimising exposure to respirable crystalline silica in workplaces; and

(ii) improving awareness of silica safety and silica-related diseases; and

(iii) improving research and national data in relation to silica safety and silica-related diseases; and

(iv) facilitating international collaboration in relation to silica safety and silica-related diseases; and

(v) any other relevant priorities.

(2) The plan referred to in subsection (1) represents a commitment to implement an agreed set of strategic actions and national targets focussing on the priorities referred to in subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (v) only if the plan has been agreed to by at least 6 of the governments of the Commonwealth and each State and Territory.

13 Part 2 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Part 2 — Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency

14 Section 6

Repeal the section, substitute:

6 Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency

The body known immediately before the commencement of this section as the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency is continued in existence with the new name, Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency.

Note: See also section 25B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

15 Subsection 8(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The Agency has the following functions:

(a) to encourage, coordinate, monitor and report on the implementation of the National Strategic Plans;

(b) to review, amend or replace, publish and promote the National Strategic Plans;

(c) to provide advice to the Minister about asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases;

(d) to collaborate with Commonwealth, State, Territory, local and other governments, agencies or bodies (including international governments, agencies and bodies) about:

(i) the development, implementation, review and amendment of the National Strategic Plans; and

(ii) asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases;

(e) to conduct, commission, monitor and promote research about asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases;

(f) to raise awareness of asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases, including by developing and promoting materials on asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases;

(g) to collect and analyse data required for measuring progress on preventing exposure to asbestos fibres, or respirable crystalline silica, and for informing evidence-based policies and strategies;

(h) to promote consistent messages, policies and practices in relation to asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases;

(i) such other functions as are conferred on the Agency by or under this Act, the rules or any other law of the Commonwealth;

(j) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the above functions.

16 Subsection 8(3)

Omit "performing it", substitute "performing its".

17 Subsection 8(3)

Omit "National Strategic Plan", substitute "National Strategic Plans".

18 After section 8

Insert:

8A Annual reports in relation to National Strategic Plans

Annual report in relation to Asbestos National Strategic Plan

(1) The Agency must, before the end of 31 December in each financial year, prepare a written report relating to the progress made by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in implementing the Asbestos National Strategic Plan during the previous financial year. The report may also include information relating to any other matter the Agency considers relevant.

(2) As soon as practicable after the Agency has prepared a report under subsection (1), the Agency must give a copy of the report to the following:

(a) the Minister who administers this Act;

(b) the Minister who administers the National Health Act 1953;

(c) the Minister who administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(d) each State or Territory Minister who is responsible, or principally responsible, for matters relating to work health and safety in the State or Territory;

(e) each State or Territory Minister who is responsible, or principally responsible, for matters relating to health in the State or Territory;

(f) each State or Territory Minister who is responsible, or principally responsible, for matters relating to the protection of the environment in the State or Territory.

Annual report in relation to Silica National Strategic Plan

(3) The Agency must, before the end of 31 December in each financial year, prepare a written report relating to the progress made by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in implementing the Silica National Strategic Plan during the previous financial year. The report may also include information relating to any other matter the Agency considers relevant.

(4) As soon as practicable after the Agency has prepared a report under subsection (3), the Agency must give a copy of the report to the following:

(a) the Minister who administers this Act;

(b) the Minister who administers the National Health Act 1953;

(c) each State or Territory Minister who is responsible, or principally responsible, for matters relating to work health and safety in the State or Territory;

(d) each State or Territory Minister who is responsible, or principally responsible, for matters relating to health in the State or Territory.

Annual reports must be publicly available

(5) The Agency must make each report prepared under subsection (1) or (3) publicly available.

Example: A report may be published on the Agency's website.

19 Section 12 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

20 Subsections 12(1), (1A) and (2)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

21 At the end of Division 1 of Part 3

Add:

14A CEO may obtain information

(1) This section applies to a person if:

(a) the CEO believes on reasonable grounds that the person has information that is relevant to the performance of any of the functions of the Agency referred to in paragraphs 8(1)(a), (b) and (g); and

(b) the CEO is satisfied that the information:

(i) is necessary for the performance of that function; and

(ii) is not otherwise available to the CEO.

(2) The CEO may, by written notice given to the person, request the person to give to the CEO, within the period and in the manner and form specified in the notice, any such information.

(3) A period specified under subsection (2) must not be shorter than 14 days after the notice is given.

(4) A manner specified in a notice under subsection (2) must involve the use of a service to which paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution applies.

(5) A person may comply with a request under subsection (2).

(6) Subsection (5) has effect despite anything in:

(a) a law of the Commonwealth (other than this Act); or

(b) a law of a State or Territory.

22 Subsection 23A(1)

After "functions or powers", insert "under this Act (other than section 14A which confers power on the CEO to obtain information in certain circumstances)".

23 Paragraph 24(1)(b)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

24 Part 5 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Part 5 — Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council

25 Division 1 of Part 5 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

26 Section 28

Repeal the section, substitute:

28 Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council

The body known immediately before the commencement of this section as the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council is continued in existence with the new name, Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council.

Note: See also section 25B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

27 Section 29 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

28 Subsection 29(1)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

29 Paragraph 29(1)(b)

After "safety", insert ", asbestos-related diseases, silica safety and silica-related diseases".

30 Paragraphs 29(1)(c) and (d)

Omit "National Strategic Plan", substitute "National Strategic Plans".

31 Subsections 29(2), (2A) and (3)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

32 Section 30 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

33 Subsections 30(1) and (2)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

34 Subsections 30A(1), (2) and (3)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

35 Division 2 of Part 5 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

36 Section 31

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

37 Paragraph 31(d)

Omit "1 member", substitute "2 members".

38 Paragraph 31(e)

Omit "1 member", substitute "2 members".

39 After paragraph 31(e)

Insert:

(ea) 1 member who has expertise relevant to asbestos safety, asbestos-related diseases, silica safety or silica-related diseases; and

40 Subsection 32(3)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) A person is eligible for appointment as a Council member under paragraph 31(a), (d), (e) or (f) only if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the person has knowledge or experience in one or more of the following:

(i) asbestos safety;

(ii) public health issues relating to asbestos;

(iii) asbestos-related diseases;

(iv) the representation of, or the provision of support to, persons with asbestos-related diseases and their families;

(v) silica safety;

(vi) silica-related diseases;

(vii) the representation of, or the provision of support to, persons with silica-related diseases and their families;

(viii) financial management;

(ix) corporate governance; or

(b) the person:

(i) has, or has had, an asbestos-related disease; or

(ii) has lived experience as a family member, carer or advocate in providing support to a person who has, or has had, an asbestos-related disease; or

(iii) has, or has had, a silica-related disease; or

(iv) has lived experience as a family member, carer or advocate in providing support to a person who has, or has had, a silica-related disease.

41 Paragraph 40(d)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

42 Division 4 of Part 5 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

43 Section 41 (heading)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

44 Subsection 41(1)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

45 Subsection 41A(1)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

46 Paragraph 41A(1)(b)

Omit "4", substitute "6".

47 Paragraph 41A(2)(a)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

48 Sections 41B, 41C, 41D and 41E

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication" (wherever occurring).

49 Subparagraph 41F(a)(ii)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

50 Paragraph 41F(b)

Omit "Asbestos", substitute "Asbestos and Silica".

51 Subpar agraph 41F(e)(iii)

Omit "Asbestos Safety and Eradication".

52 Subsection 42(3)

Omit "the National Strategic Plan", substitute "either of the National Strategic Plans".

53 At the end of section 42

Add:

(4) The annual operational plan is taken to be a corporate plan for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

54 Section 47

Repeal the section, substitute:

47 Review of the Agency's role and functions

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency's ongoing role and functions to be conducted.

(2) The review must:

(a) start 5 years after the commencement of this section; and

(b) be completed within 6 months.

(3) The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the completion of the report.

Part 2 — Application, saving and transitional provisions

55 Definitions

In this Part:

amended Act means the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013, as in force after the commencement day.

commencement day means the day this Part commences.

Silica Plan agre ement day means the day after the day the Silica National Strategic Plan has been agreed to by at least 6 of the governments of the Commonwealth and each State and Territory.

56 Functions of the Agency — Silica National Strategic Plan

Paragraphs 8(1)(a) and (b) and subsection 8(3) of the amended Act apply to the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency in relation to the Silica National Strategic Plan on and after the Silica Plan agreement day.

57 Functions of the Agency — annual report relating to imp lementation of Asbestos National Strategic Plan

General

(1) Subsection 8A(1) of the amended Act applies in relation to the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency subject to subitems (2) and (3) of this item.

First annual report after commencement day

(2) If the commencement day is before 1 September 2024, the first report prepared by the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency under subsection 8A(1) of the amended Act must:

(a) relate to progress made by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in implementing the Asbestos National Strategic Plan during the period beginning on 1 January 2024 and ending at the end of 30 June 2024; and

(b) be prepared before the end of 31 December 2024.

(3) If the commencement day is on or after 1 September 2024, the first report prepared by the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency under subsection 8A(1) of the amended Act must:

(a) relate to progress made by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in implementing the Asbestos National Strategic Plan during the period (the first reporting period) beginning on 1 January 2024 and ending at the end of the financial year that includes the commencement day; and

(b) be prepared before the end of 31 December in the financial year beginning after the end of the first reporting period.

(4) Subsections 8A(2) and (5) of the amended Act apply in relation to a report prepared under subitem (2) or (3) of this item as if the report were a report prepared under subsection 8A(1) of the amended Act.

58 Functions of the Agency — annual report relating to implementation of Silica National Strategic Plan

General

(1) Subject to subitems (2), (3) and (4) of this item, subsections 8A(3) and (4) of the amended Act apply in relation to the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency on and after the Silica Plan agreement day.

First annual report after Silica Plan agreement day

(2) If the Silica Plan agreement day is between 1 July and 31 December in a financial year (the first financial year), the first report prepared by the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency under subsection 8A(3) of the amended Act must:

(a) instead of relating to the matters referred to in that subsection, include information relating to:

(i) the matters covered by the Silica National Strategic Plan; and

(ii) the activities undertaken by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in relation to the implementation of the Silica National Strategic Plan during the period (the first reporting period) beginning on the Silica Plan agreement day and ending at the end of the first financial year; and

(iii) any other matter the Agency considers relevant; and

(b) be prepared before the end of 31 December in the financial year beginning after the end of the first reporting period.

(3) If the Silica Plan agreement day is between 1 January and 30 June in a financial year (the first financial year), the first report prepared by the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency under subsection 8A(3) of the amended Act must:

(a) relate to progress made by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in implementing the Silica National Strategic Plan during the period (the first reporting period) beginning on the Silica Plan agreement day and ending at the end of the next financial year after the first financial year; and

(b) be prepared before the end of 31 December in the financial year beginning after the end of the first reporting period.

(4) Subsections 8A(4) and (5) of the amended Act apply in relation to a report prepared under subitem (2) or (3) of this item as if the report were a report prepared under subsection 8A(3) of the amended Act.

59 CEO of the Agency

The person holding office as the CEO of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency under section 15 of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 immediately before the commencement day continues, on and after the commencement day, to hold office as the CEO of the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency:

(a) on the terms and conditions that applied to the person immediately before the commencement day; and

(b) for the balance of the person's term of appointment that remained immediately before the commencement day.

60 Functions of the CEO of the Agency — annual operational plan

Subsection 42(3) of the amended Act applies to the CEO of the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency in relation to the Silica National Strategic Plan on and after the Silica Plan agreement day.

61 Functions of the Council — Silica National Strategic Plan

Paragraphs 29(1)(c) and (d) of the amended Act apply to the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council in relation to the Silica National Strategic Plan on and after the Silica Plan agreement day.

62 Members of the Council

A person holding office as a member of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council under section 32 of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 immediately before the commencement day continues, on and after the commencement day, to hold office as a member of the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council:

(a) on the terms and conditions that applied to the person immediately before the commencement day; and

(b) for the balance of the person's term of appointment that remained immediately before the commencement day.

The government will be opposing these amendments. They are still before a Senate committee, and we look forward to dealing with them under the closing loopholes legislation that we'll be dealing with later this year or early next year.

The opposition will also be opposing these amendments. Whilst we understand the intent of Senator Tyrrell in putting forward these particular amendments, we haven't had the opportunity to look at them. As the government has put in its comments, they are still before a committee.

Question negatived.

by leave—I request that the Greens support for Senator Tyrrell's amendment be recorded.

The Hansard will reflect that the Greens supported Senator Tyrrell's amendment.

Progress reported.

As I was unable to make a contribution last night, I would like to take this time to acknowledge my friend and valued colleague Senator Marise Payne. With more than 26 years service in this place, Senator Payne ensures her place in history as the longest-serving women in the Australian Senate and the longest-serving female parliamentarian to serve in a single chamber. She served as a minister in the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison coalition governments, with each prime minister recognising her distinctive contribution. I know we all appreciated Senator Payne's strong leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in navigating our diplomatic engagement internationally and coordinating support for our regional neighbours.

Senator Payne's significant achievements were highlighted at length last night, so I will not repeat them here. However, I will say that I stand in awe of this woman and what she has done for our country. Senator Payne commands profound respect, and has done throughout her entire political career. As we heard last night, how many in this chamber could say they accepted a nomination from the US to act as ship sponsor for USS Canberra? Many women who walk through these halls have been mentored by Senator Payne, boosted by her encouragement and support to step into leadership positions, where they have thrived. Our party and this place is better for this strong representation and guidance from someone so respected. In my 4½ years in the Senate I have drawn on Senator Payne's vast experience and advice on many occasions, and I am so grateful to have had the fortune of her guidance and support over that time. Marise, you are great and trustworthy, brilliant and bold. We will miss your insight, your wisdom and the standards you set. Most of all, we will miss you and your friendship within these walls.

Earlier this week the Australian Union of Jewish Students and the Zionist Federation of Australia were in Parliament House to discuss a recent survey of Jewish university students and their experience of antisemitism on campus. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the morning tea, but I want to take a moment in the Senate today to recognise the work and talk about the findings of the survey.

The survey found that nearly two-thirds of Jewish students have experienced antisemitism at a university in Australia, which is disgraceful. In addition to this awful statistic, 57 per cent of the students surveyed have hidden their Jewish identity to avoid antisemitism. The Zionist Federation of Australia have published some quotes from the students who took part in the survey, and I want to read out what in particular:

I feel uncomfortable about being openly Jewish with other students (other than my close friends). Whenever I would mention it, it always feels a bit like coming out, where you don't exactly know how people will respond, if they will judge you negatively or change their behaviour because of it.

With one in five Jewish students staying away from university campuses to avoid antisemitism, it is incumbent on our universities to act and do more in this place. Seventy-six per cent of respondents to the survey said they would be more confident in the university complaints system and procedures if they adopted a definition of antisemitism. To be honest, I think that would be a very good place to start. I stand in solidarity with the Jewish community and the students against the scourge of antisemitism in this country, particularly at our universities. I call on parliamentarians to do the same thing.

At the end of August it was an honour to join Michael Long in Narm to kick off the Long Walk. It's 20 years after legend Michael Long first undertook his long walk. This morning I joined Michael Long, our Prime Minister, my good friend and former senator of this place Nova Peris, my Greens colleagues and hundreds of other walkers at the end of their journey and walked up here to Parliament House where we were greeted by the incredible Dr Matilda House and her son Paul. What a beautiful morning it was. It was a morning full of hope, love and the knowledge that together we can achieve better outcomes for First Nations people.

14 October is rapidly approaching. For many of us once we leave this place today it will be boots on the ground to get out and talk to as many people as we can in the next four weeks. Please check that your enrolment is up-to-date, talk to your family and friends, volunteer, phone bank, hand out flyers and get out there to the polling booths. It will take all of us to ensure that we wake up to a 'yes' result on 15 October. No matter what, we need to remember why we are doing this. First Nations people from right across the country have called for truth, treaty and a voice. We are simply listening and trying to action these calls for our communities across Australia. We are doing this for our old people and for our future generations. Please vote yes.

Here we are at the end of the last sitting week before the Prime Minister's referendum on his Canberra based Voice to Parliament. As you walk around and speak to Australians about the upcoming vote they are still unsure what it's all about. They don't actually understand what is actually being proposed by the Prime Minister or how it will impact our country. Intrinsically I know that Australians want to be fair about this, but they're being forced to make a decision without the necessary details, and that is unfair to Australians. The only certainty that they have about the Prime Minister's Canberra Voice is that it contains serious risk, it's divisive, it's completely uncertain how the High Court will interpret it and, if carried in a referendum, it would be a permanent change to our Constitution.

Despite what Labor seem to believe, Canberra does not know what is best. It's actually those who are on the ground living in rural and regional communities who know what's best. As a senator from regional South Australia I understand firsthand the challenges that are felt differently in the bush. Often those challenges must be addressed with flexible, innovative and unique solutions. The Prime Minister's approach to the Voice risks the needs of rural and regional Australia being completely overlooked. We on this side of the chamber understand that there is a better way—a better way than a top-down, permanently enshrined, elitist Voice based out of Canberra. We believe in the importance of having local and regional voices, bodies embedded in local communities, established at the grassroots.

It's disappointing that Labor has chosen to reject these alternative approaches in favour of a risky, untested body that will be permanently locked into our Constitution. Labor believes that Canberra knows best about what local communities need. The coalition understands that it's local communities that know what's best for them.

Brain Injury Awareness Week was held recently. In fact, it was from 21 to 27 August. In an opinion piece in the Mercury, the Hobart paper, the executive officer of the Brain Injury Association of Tasmania, Deb Byrne, used the occasion to pay tribute to long-term member Alf Archer. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Archer and the amazing contribution that he made to brain injury awareness.

Mr Archer died on 3 August this year. He was only 53. He acquired his brain injury crashing his car at high speed in October 1994. Since the early 2000s and up until his death Mr Archer used his experience to educate school and college students on the challenges of living with a brain injury and the importance of prevention. He was the key presenter in the crash investigator information sessions run as part of the Rotary Youth Driver Awareness, RYDA, program, a contribution for which he was awarded a Paul Harris Fellowship.

Mr Archer spent 21 years serving the Brain Injury Association of Tasmania. I had the honour of meeting him as a regular attendee at their events. He had a friendly personality and a great sense of humour. He injected this humour into his RYDA presentations, but behind the humour Mr Archer struggled with daily living and he expressed on more than one occasion a wish that he had died in the crash, in the belief that it would have been easier on him and his family.

I honour Alf Archer's commitment to spreading an important message that we should all heed: that acquired brain injury is permanent, it's debilitating and in many cases it's preventable. Throughout almost two decades, Mr Archer imparted this message to thousands of students, and I hope it prompted many of them to think of their driving and other risk-taking behaviour. Vale, Alf Archer, and thank you.

We talk a lot about transparency in this place, but it's not only Canberra that needs more sunlight to disinfect our politics; it's also our parliament down there in Tasmania. Just last week, the state Liberal Minister for Energy and Renewables, Guy Barnett, has been referred to the Privileges and Conduct Committee, and so he should be. And guess what it is over. Yep, the Marinus Link, the undersea electricity cable between Tasmania and Victoria. Minister Barnett failed to deliver the full costing of the Marinus Link to the Tasmanian parliament. Independents in the Tasmanian parliament have been asking all the right questions and getting absolutely no answers, as usual. The Tasmanian taxpayer is facing potentially underwriting billions of dollars for the AFL stadium with a so-called roof, the Marinus Link and the North West Transmission Developments line. Instead of being honest with Tasmanians, the Rockliff Liberal government has just been trying to push everything through with as little scrutiny as possible.

The Independents in Tasmania's parliament have all rightly pointed out that TasNetworks have said that just six per cent of the benefits of Marinus will come to Tasmania. Professor Bruce Mountain from the Victoria Energy Policy Centre has said, 'The claims that Marinus will reduce prices in Tasmania and Victoria are rubbish.' The other thing that is rubbish is the lack of transparency in our state parliament in Tasmania. Tasmanian families are facing a cost-of-living crisis, and they need to know if Tasmanian taxpayers are going to be saddled with debt that they will be paying off for generations and simply cannot afford. Seriously, I tell you you are on your last legs down there, Premier, and these transparency issues are not helping. If this Marinus Link is such a great deal then show us the economics behind it, big boy, because we're just not buying it.

nator SCARR (—) (): A hard act to follow, as always. I refer to the National Press Club address by Commissioner Nick Kaldas in relation to the veteran suicide royal commission. Every single senator in this chamber should read Commissioner Kaldas's National Press Club address. It is deeply, deeply disturbing. Twenty-six months into this royal commission, Nick Kaldas has this to say about the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs:

Operationally, when we first commenced this inquiry, we did not expect to be stymied and stonewalled along the way.

We have faced significant delays in the provision of vital data and information sought from Defence …

…   …   …

Despite the Government establishing a Royal Commission—and the legislature wanting certain issues investigated—

that's us—

obtaining critical information from Commonwealth bodies in a timely manner has been difficult.

Our success will require Government and its agencies—including the ADF, Defence and DVA—to, once and for all, get on board and act.

The fact the royal commissioner was moved to make that National Press Club address 26 months into the royal commission should be a clarion call to the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and it should be a call to the ministers to act and ensure cooperation from those departments. We shouldn't require a royal commission in relation to the Department of Defence and Department of Veterans' Affairs response to the royal commission. Act now.

Completely unrelated to my statement today, I'd like to take the opportunity to do a huge shout-out to Dot from Yarrawonga. Thank you, Dot, for being such a kind, hardworking community member and enthusiastic Voice supporter. Your work is very much appreciated.

I'd also like to congratulate the mighty TWU for their historic win in the High Court yesterday, a huge win for workers. This decision was made possible thanks to the ongoing advocacy of the mighty Transport Workers Union. Transport workers were among the first in Australia to be stood down at the start of the pandemic. I commend the brave unionists who have been fighting this battle from the very start, including national secretary Michael Kaine, Vic/Tas secretary Mike McNess and assistant secretary Mem Suleyman.

In March 2020, Qantas embarked on the biggest mass sacking in Australian history. Over 1,700 cabin crew and airline staff were unlawfully sacked, tossed to the side to face increasing uncertainty despite their years of loyalty to the flying kangaroo. The Transport Workers Union took the injustice against these workers to the Federal Court and won—twice. When Qantas appealed to the High Court, they thought they could get away with it.

For too long Qantas has exploited labour hire loopholes and price gouging on ticket fares. Right now, cabin crew working on a Qantas flight are employed across 14 companies and contracts, each owned by Qantas and each with worse wages and conditions. Some of Qantas's labour hire cabin crew are earning less than half that of their directly employed co-workers while doing the same work on the flight. They also miss out on penalty rates and job security.

It's time we fixed this broken system that lets dodgy bosses make record profits with rock-bottom standards and unfair working conditions. Yesterday the High Court unanimously ruled in support of workers. When the closing loopholes bill is before us in this chamber, I sincerely hope this parliament will stand in support of workers too.

The greyhound export trade ruthlessly sacrifices dogs on the altar of greed and profit. How many more greyhounds must suffer before the government musters the courage to slam the door on this wretched industry? Greyhounds from Australia are routinely ending up overseas, in countries where there isn't a semblance of animal welfare protection for these dogs, and there is absolutely nothing in Australian law to stop this.

The greyhound racing and gambling industry doesn't give a crap about dogs, inside or outside Australia. For them, greyhounds are merely collateral damage—out of sight, out of mind. They just hope that no-one discovers their dirty little secret and that they don't get caught. The industry's greyhound passport system is a complete and utter failure. It is useless, essentially unenforceable and has no statutory power. No matter what this vile industry says, neither the welfare of the dogs nor where they end up can be guaranteed once they have been exported.

Between 2016 and 2023, nearly 2,000 greyhounds were exported from Australia, according to public records. Between January and July this year, 385 greyhounds were exported. We have no idea where they will finally end up. It's left up to greyhound protection groups to track the fate of these dogs, and that speaks volumes about how little this gambling fuelled racing industry and the government actually care.

The only way to protect greyhounds is to shut down this trade. I urge the government to step up and support my bill to ban export of greyhounds for racing, breeding and commercial purposes. The gambling industry may have a hold on the major parties, but the tide of public opinion is turning against racing, and it is only a matter of time before this violent spectacle of a sport is remembered as a shameful chapter in this nation's history. (Time expired)

After decades of people in the ACT and the Northern Territory fighting to have our territory rights restored—we fought to have the ability to debate and legislate on voluntary assisted dying; the Senate unanimously agreed it was time to restore territory rights—we have yet another attack on territory rights today, from Senator Cash.

In 1975 a deal was struck to give the territories two senators each. This was a political deal and essentially meant that the major parties each got a seat in both of the territories. But the decision did not address the core question of the appropriate baseline level of democracy for small jurisdictions: what is the appropriate balance between federalism and representative democracy? In our Constitution, this issue is addressed by smaller states, such as Tasmania, having equal representation in the Senate. They have 12 senators, the same as the bigger states. When it comes to the territories, we have only two. This is another example of the need to increase Senate representation for the territories so we have more people standing up for territorians. For people who live here—for someone who lives in Queanbeyan—we have less rights and we have federal senators who feel like they can reach into our democratically elected legislative assembly when they don't like decisions.

We have the Canberra Liberals' Leader of the Opposition, Elizabeth Lee, saying that, while she may not agree with the laws and that she'll campaign against them, she doesn't want her federal colleagues reaching into the affairs of the ACT. I would urge my fellow senators to take heed of her words and the rights of people in the Territory to democratically elect their own government and hold them to account.

I've been to many regional shows. This is the regional show season in Western Australia—spring. Many of the large regional shows occur at this time. I've spent many hours on my feet at those regional shows talking to Western Australians from both the city and the bush because these shows do attract a wide range of people. Many topics came up: Labor's plan to ban live exports, the tax regime, property rights and even some left-field ideas, like nuclear power.

The overwhelming issue that came up was, of course, the referendum. Overwhelmingly, those people who spoke to me were going to vote no. They didn't do so from a place of negativity. They did so having looked at the proposals for and against and made a clear decision on their position. They were angry at the PM for putting such a divisive proposal to us. They were angry at the Prime Minister for trying to divide the nation. They were even more angry at the large corporations and sporting associations who wanted to impose themselves on the debate with no duty of care for our Constitution. Those corporations do not care about our Constitution. Those major sporting codes do not care about our Constitution.

The protecters of our Constitution are the citizens of Australia, and I am confident that they will take their responsibility seriously, look at the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion that this referendum should be voted against. Vote no.

As a servant to the different people who make up our one Queensland community, today I raise, once again, the failure of successive governments to deal with the issue of PFAS. The PFAS group of chemicals are man-made chemicals that remain active in the environment essentially forever, hence their common name 'forever chemicals'. More importantly, exposure to PFAS is accumulative. Consistent exposure to a low level of contamination causes PFAS to build up inside the human body. The European Union has accepted PFAS can cause reproductive cancers, increased miscarriage risk, low sperm counts and immune system deficiencies.

The United Nations introduced the Stockholm convention on persistent chemicals in 2009 to control PFAS, and recently the European Union imposed a limit of 4.6 nanograms per kilo of body weight as the maximum daily intake. Australia has consistently refused to introduce a limit on PFAS exposure. We are falling behind the rest of the world, and that's a threat to our food exports.

Now PFAS is back in the news with the revelation that cardboard food products are using PFAS to provide waterproof coatings in utensils and disposable containers. Last month it was revealed that paper straws contained PFAS to stop the straw going soggy. If you have a chemical that builds up in your system and causes serious illness over time, of course the place you would put that chemical is in a drinking straw! Yes, of course. The type of PFAS found in straws was banned in the European Union in 2020 because it is dangerous.

In March the US FDA indicated there was no safe limit for PFAS in drinking water and proposed a limit of 0.004 nanograms per kilo of body weight. In June the Sydney Morning Herald reported that federal health bureaucrats tried to change an Australian National University study on cancer spikes from PFAS contamination in defence bases to avoid raising undue alarm. The Labor government promised compensation. The Labor government needs to honour that promise. PFAS is not going away. (Time expired)

Last week the government introduced a bill aimed at closing some significant loopholes that undercut wages and conditions for vulnerable workers. However, it falls short of closing a major loophole in our employment laws—that is, the unrestricted access employers have to workers outside their paid hours. Australian workers, on average, are doing six weeks of unpaid overtime every year. The scale of this wage and time theft is being driven by the widespread use of new technologies in our working lives. They mean that workers are always contactable by phone after hours, on the weekend and while they're on holiday. Work is following us everywhere. It's in our pocket and it has massive consequences for people's lives.

I've heard from workers. Many of them are experiencing burnout. They've got poor sleep and they've got serious stress because of excessive hours. Availability creep interrupts our precious family time. The pressing need to spend time with our loved ones and our kids is pitted against the demands of work. For many workers, not answering the phone is not an option. People in insecure work are constantly waiting for the phone to ring to let them know when their next shift might be or whether they'll earn enough to cover the rent this week. No-one should need to be available to their boss 24/7. Workers need a right to disconnect.

We need to change the norms and change the conversation. It's not a radical idea. The right to disconnect has very broad support in our community. Eighty-four per cent of Australians think the government should legislate for this in our national employment law. Unions are already championing the cause, fighting for this right to be included in collective agreements. Australia's workplace relations system needs to reflect a 21st century workforce. We need to update our standards in this area. No-one should be facing theft at work—theft of wages, theft of penalty payments, theft of superannuation or theft by means of unpaid working time. (Time expired)

As we all know in this chamber, at the front of so many Australians' minds right now is housing, whether you are renting, paying a mortgage, seeking to enter the housing market or you have a loved one who is struggling. The housing challenges facing Australians are weighing large and they are weighing on Australians of my generation and younger the most.

Safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. At the worst end of the spectrum, homelessness is impacting some 122,000 Australians, and we know it is affecting older women the most. That's why it is such a good thing that our Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 passed this chamber this week. These bills will make a significant difference to the bottleneck we know is causing so much pain in Australia right now—and that is housing supply. If we do not fix housing supply in this country, particularly at the social and affordable end, we will not fix the housing crisis which is affecting so many Australians and particularly hurting younger Australians who feel let down and locked out by the housing market in this country.

It's not just about this bill. It's about the other measures we have introduced. This will build 30,000 new social and affordable homes. There is another billion dollars for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. We have the national target to build 1.2 million homes, the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator and our Better Deal for Renters agreement. This is all about supply. If young people are going to be able to get into the housing market, if we are going to relieve the pressure which is hurting so many Australians in our country, we have to address supply. These sorts of reforms will do that. They're the kinds of reforms which can only be delivered by governments, and they will only be delivered by Labor governments.

I want to join with colleagues on this side of the chamber who have congratulated the Transport Workers Union for their successful court action yesterday. What happened to those workers—their treatment by Qantas—was an absolute tragedy. I give full credit to the Transport Workers Union and the other unions that pursued this court action and sought justice for these workers.

We need to turn our minds back to when this happened and what was going on in this country. The country was going through a difficult phase. COVID had a tremendous impact on so many industries. But the way Qantas operated and treated these workers was absolutely disgraceful. What was worse than that was that the government of the day—those opposite—did nothing for those workers. They did not stand up for those workers. They did not condemn Qantas. They were happy in government to let that happen and let the workers be treated in such a disgraceful way. It is an absolute shame and a discredit to them that they enabled this to happen on their watch.

That is not how this government operates. We will absolutely stand up for workers and ensure that they get a fair deal and fair treatment in the workplace. We want to clean up those loopholes and ensure that if people have the same job they get the same pay. We know that it is rife through so many places in this country.

This is a Labor government that is absolutely on the side of workers, that wants to deliver a better deal for workers in this country. And that is exactly what we will do with the closing the loopholes legislation that will come before this chamber.

by leave—I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Wong will be absent from question time today on account of ministerial business overseas. In Senator Wong's absence I will be the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate

An honourable senator: Yay!

Calm down. Ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President and to party leaders and Independent senators.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Senator, yesterday in your answer to a question about the new drug laws introduced by ACT Labor, you said:

… 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.

These laws will allow people to carry up to a gram of heroin or 1.5 grams of ice. According to the US Department of Justice, that is enough heroin to kill five people, and yet, in the ACT your infringement would be smaller than the fine you would receive for parking outside your space at a shopping centre. Can you please clarify the government's position on how much ice or heroin it is appropriate to carry for personal use, and can you also advise whether other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, have raised concerns with these laws?

Thank you, Senator Askew. For the second time in two days, the opposition is asking about a matter that is completely the responsibility of a state or territory government—a democratically elected parliament.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

Are you okay with it, Senator Gallagher?

Senator Ruston! I just called the chamber to order.

Senator Askew has referred to part of my answer from yesterday. The majority of my answer yesterday was to point out that this is completely a state and territory issue. Whether or not drug use is criminalised is 100 per cent an issue for state and territory criminal law. As I said yesterday, most of us come to this place to debate serious national matters that concern the Commonwealth of Australia. We are, of course, taking the matter of the trafficking of illicit drugs seriously, as I mentioned yesterday. This bill was passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly in October 2022, and a number of Liberal Party members of the ACT parliament voted for that legislation. Most interestingly, this morning on the radio the ACT Liberal leader, Elizabeth Lee, said:

The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I am very concerned about any step to diminish that.

I do not agree with this action taken by the federal Coalition to seek to overturn legislation that was passed by the ACT Assembly.

So this stunt from the federal Liberal Party doesn't even have the support of the ACT Liberal Party! Did you pick up the phone and talk to the ACT Liberals before you decided to ask questions about this? Did you pick up the phone and talk to the ACT Liberals before you decided to introduce a stunt of a private senators' bill this morning? Your own party doesn't even support what you are doing. We know you don't have any ACT Liberals in the Senate anymore. You don't even have a Liberal Party member for the ACT in the Senate anymore—

Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Askew, a first supplementary?

Minister, as you are no doubt aware, the ACT criminal laws are applied in the Jervis Bay territory, on some flights, on Australian ships and to Australians on foreign ships in some circumstances. Can the minister confirm that police will need to enforce ACT Labor's drug charter in places outside the ACT, including ships and planes?

I'm not going to get into matters that are completely the responsibility of a state and territory government, and that is—

Ships and planes?

Well, the last time I looked there weren't ships floating around the ACT, unless you're talking about Lake Burley-Griffin—

President, a point of order: The minister has in the early stages gone to the 'I'm not going to get into a state or territory matter' response yet again. Yet the specific question asked by Senator Askew went very directly to the impact on matters outside of ACT territorial boundaries and the impact on Australian ships, Australian planes and other areas of law enforcement. I ask you draw the minister to the specifics of the question. Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will draw the minister to the question.

What I can tell the Senate is that the Albanese government takes the border measures relating to the trafficking of illegal drugs extremely seriously, and I commend our Australian Border Force officers and the AFP for their hard work in ensuring that we keep as many of these substances out of Australia as possible. In fact, there has been an increased effort from the Australian Border Force on these matters. For the 2022-23 financial year, the ABF made 4,296 detections of cocaine at the border, with an estimated total weight of 4,769 kilograms. This represents—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham.

A further point of order on direct relevance. I appreciate the minister is talking about Commonwealth enforcement in relation to drug trafficking. However, again, the specific question asked by Senator Askew went to the enforcement of these laws and their applicability in other circumstances that are outside the ACT territory. It's specific to these laws about possession, not trafficking, and their applicability. If the minister doesn't know, he should take it on notice.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham, I'll remind the minister of the question.

This represents, in relation to cocaine, a 166 per cent increase in the weight of detections from the previous financial year. That's what's happening under the Albanese government. As for what the ACT government does, it's a matter for them to decide. (Time expired)

Senator Askew, a second supplementary?

These new drugs will need to be enforced by the AFP, but even if police were forced to carry measuring devices to determine weight, there is no clarity on whether the new laws apply to mixed-weight or pure-weight drugs. They do not have the capacity to determine the substance type, and there is no clarity on how it works alongside Commonwealth law. How will the AFP enforce this?

Again, these are all very good matters to put to the ACT parliament, who have the responsibility for passing this legislation. We know that the federal coalition has a long history of trampling over territory rights. They've done it for the Northern Territory. They've done it to the ACT in relation to euthanasia laws. Now, they're doing it in relation to drug criminalisation laws. It would appear, as I say, that they don't even have support from the ACT Liberal Party when they decide to stomp into this chamber to trample on territory rights. There are other occasions when the federal Liberals have stood up for territory rights. In fact, one of them is sitting right there—Senator Birmingham. It was always anachronistic for the Commonwealth to have decided that the one limitation on the territories compared to the states would be on the questions of voluntary euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. So there was a time when Senator Birmingham stood up for territory rights, but we know that Senator Birmingham stopped standing up for anything quite a long time ago.

Senator Scarr.

That was an awful personal reflection.

Senator Scarr, why are you on your feet? Order! No interjections across the chamber. Senator Scarr.

There was a personal reflection. The phrase used, which was awful—

Do not repeat the phrase. I didn't hear it because—

He should withdraw.

Senator Scarr, please resume your seat. In the spirit of a harmonious chamber—if that's possible—Minister Watt, if you would withdraw the comment.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

My question is to Senator Gallagher, representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Today, Michael Long concludes his second Long Walk from Melbourne to Canberra, advocating for a voice to parliament. Since his first walk in 2004, to combat racial discrimination, we've made meaningful strides including the apology to the stolen generations. This time, Mr Long used his walk to advocate we take the next steps together: recognition and practical action through the Voice. Can the minister explain how the Voice will empower Indigenous Australians in key areas like health, education and housing?

or GALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Urquhart for the question, and for the support she's providing in Tasmania for the campaign for a voice to our parliament and Constitutional recognition for First Nations Australians. Listening to the advice of the Voice will help inform decisions to direct funds where they will have the most impact and deliver the best outcomes in those key areas of Indigenous health, education, employment and housing. We are still seeing around an eight-year gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people compared with other Australians. Nationally, 68.1 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 20 to 24 years had attained year 12 or equivalent qualification compared to 90.7 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians, and only 81.4 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are living in appropriately sized, not overcrowded, housing compared with 93.5 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians.

What we are doing now is not working and it is time for us to walk a different path together as a nation, to change the structure of how we make decisions that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and then change the outcomes. That is what this referendum is about. It is about bringing the country together and working with each other to drive those better outcomes. As Michael Long so powerfully said this morning in Canberra:

I don't want to be talking about closing the gap in another 20 years or 30 years. Let's do something about it, you know, and part of that is being able to advocate on issues that affect Indigenous people. We haven't got it right yet. It's unbelievable that in 2023 we haven't got this right.

But on October 14 we have a chance to make this right. On referendum day, each one of us can take action to close the gap by voting yes for constitutional recognition through a voice to our nation's parliament.'

Senator Urquhart, a first supplementary?

Michael Long's journey along the 660 kilometre route from Melbourne is not just a walk; it is a dialogue, a testament to the transformative power of listening. He has engaged with Australians one conversation at a time. Inspired by Mr Long's example, how will the act of listening enable us to make decisions that genuinely reflect the needs and aspirations of Indigenous Australians?

I thank Senator Urquhart for the supplementary. Michael Long's walk is indeed an example of listening and engaging and it is one we can all learn from. By listening to the Voice we can make decisions that genuinely reflect the needs and aspirations of Indigenous Australians. There is no doubt that we will make better decisions when we listen, and the outcomes are better when those directly affected can have a say. Listening to the advice of the Voice will help inform decisions about funding, where they will have the most impact and deliver better outcomes in those key areas.

We know that ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a say on the matters that affect communities will deliver better value for money. Governments from both sides have invested billions in programs that haven't delivered the outcomes or worked for local communities. A Voice will help us listen to locals and ensure that money is invested in those areas that will drive better outcomes. By incorporating the Voice into our decision-making processes, we're not only improving programs or policies but are fostering a more inclusive, respectful and United Australia.

Senator Urquhart, a second supplementary?

As Michael Long concludes his second long walk today, we are reminded of our shared opportunity to begin a new journey, embracing and listening. Minister, can you elaborate on how the Voice will ensure Indigenous voices aren't just heard but are central to decisions that shape a brighter, more inclusive future for all Australians?

As Michael Long concluded his walk today, we were reminded we have a shared opportunity for a fresh start. By embracing the Voice, we are not just listening but we are acting and, in doing so, we are paving the way for a brighter, more harmonious future for everybody. We saw this in action this morning when representatives from across the political spectrum, including from members of the opposition, joined the Prime Minister and Michael Long in Canberra to walk for the Voice. We will see this spirit of togetherness in action on Sunday when across Australia anyone is able to join their local community walk and walk in support of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The reasons to vote yes are simple and compelling and really come down to those three main reasons about respect, about recognition and, finally, about delivering better outcomes for First Nations people. I hope in the next few weeks up until 14 October that we all ensure we have a dignified and respectful debate in the lead-up to that day.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Given the widespread concerns about the minister for transport's decision to protect Qantas from additional competition by Qatar Airways, especially from those Australian exporters and those in the tourism industry, is the government considering reviewing its decision on Qatar Airways?

I thank Senator Canavan for his question. The issue, of course, in this respect is an issue for the minister for transport, Minister Catherine King. She made the original decision to decline the offer of Qatar to increase its services and, of course, she has responsibility to determine whether any airline should be allowed extra slots in Australian airports. I have said on a number of occasions that, if Qatar wanted to get some extra flights into Australia, they could come into Adelaide. They've got one service a day.

Yes; I'll take that interjection from Senator Birmingham: so could Qantas. Qantas does not have a single international flight out of Adelaide and hasn't for 10 long years. I would very much welcome additional flights from Qatar out of Adelaide, which they can do right now. I would also welcome any flights from Qantas.

The direct answer to your question, Senator Canavan, is that this is an issue with the minister for transport. (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

r CANAVAN () (): No answer there. Minister, there are reports that the Austrade stand at Fine Food Australia, a leading food industry trade event, has been restricted to Indigenous-only businesses. Is this correct? Are all of the 15 producers featured on this stand actually exporters? How does this policy help the many other Australian exporters, who will face extra logistics costs because government insists on there being fewer flights out of Australia?

Just a moment, Minister Farrell. I've got Minister Gallagher on her feet.

I'm sure I know what Minister Gallagher is going to say—that this has no relevance at all to the initial question—but I'm happy to answer it.

I think Senator Farrell is making a point of order. On that issue: the original question specifically asked about the complaints of Australian exporters and the cost to them of this decision, and so does the supplementary, so I reject that point of order.

I would say it's quite thin, but there's a link there, and the minister is answering your question. Minister Farrell.

You'll get a direct answer, right? Surprise, surprise! It must be the end of two weeks in the Senate question time. Regrettably, there has been some misinformation about what has been occurring at the Fine Food Australia exhibit, and I would like to take this opportunity—thank you, Senator Canavan—to correct the situation. There are something like 850 exhibitors from across Australia at this event, from the food, beverage and hospitality sector. Of the 300 face-to-face interviews that Austrade organised for the participants, only 15 of them— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Why have the Prime Minister and Minister King let the uncertainty and confusion surrounding their rejection of more flights in and out of Australia drag on for weeks? Given the perceived quid pro quo deal between the government and Qantas as the flagship corporate supporter of the 'yes' campaign and the Voice referendum, is it time for the Prime Minister to cut his ties with Qantas and Alan Joyce?

I thank Senator Canavan for his second supplementary question. I don't think there could be anybody in this chamber that could not have seen the reaction by Labor members of parliament, including great senators like Senator Sheldon, to the decision yesterday by the High Court to make it very clear that actions by Qantas to sack 1,700 of their workforce and replace them—actions that you supported. You supported Qantas. I don't think anybody—

Order on my right! Senator McKenzie, I remind you that you do not stand and then move to a point of order. You wait until I call you. Senator McKenzie.

A point of order.

Yes.

It's on direct relevance. Senator Canavan's question was about cutting ties with Qantas as the 'yes' campaign flagship, given the High Court decision yesterday.

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. The minister is being relevant to the question. Minister Farrell, please continue.

It was your government that supported Qantas when they illegally sacked— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Watt. This year more than 100,000 public school kids will graduate having never attended a public school that was funded to its minimum level of need. With underfunding meaning growing teacher shortages and declining NAPLAN results, will the government listen to the urgent calls of students, parents, carers, unions and teachers for help to save our public schools and get them to 100 per cent of their minimum funding requirement at the start of the next National School Reform Agreement?

Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne. I answer this question as a proud product of the public schooling system. My children attend the public schooling system. Most of my family have taught in the public sector system. So I'm very happy to speak up for the public education system.

The Minister for Education, Mr Clare, has said that Australia has a good education system but it can be a lot better and a lot fairer. Of course, funding of schools is an important component of this. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education and is supported to achieve, regardless of their location, background or socioeconomic status. We are committed to working with the states and territories to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level, and negotiations on that are well underway with the states and territories.

For government schools, funding per student is growing year on year, including an increase of seven per cent over the last year, from $3,829 per student in 2022 to $4,096 in 2023. Some non-government schools are currently being funded above 100 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, while, under current funding arrangements, most government schools will never get 100 per cent of the SRS. The government's commitment—

I take that interjection, Senator O'Neill. That is the legacy, of course, of 10 years of coalition government. The government's commitment will ensure that every school is appropriately resourced and able to provide a high-quality education to all students. Funding is critical, but so is what it does. The current National School Reform Agreement was signed off in 2018 by the member for Cook, Mr Morrison, and it speaks to the wasted decade and missed opportunities in school education. So, as I say, these matters are currently under negotiation with the states and territories, but the intent of the government is clear. (Time expired)

. Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary?

Minister, with only vague talk of a pathway to full funding sometime in the indeterminate future, has the government joined the opposition in consigning another generation of public school kids to a further decade of underfunding, permanently baking inequality into our education system?

I would have thought that the previous answer I gave showed that our approach is completely different to that of the former coalition government. I know that it doesn't suit the Greens' political frame—

Lib-Lab!

Lib-Lab, lumping everyone in together and all that nonsense—ignoring the fact that they held up the passage of the housing bill for months through their unholy alliance with the coalition. That coalition was fine, apparently, but any other situation is not.

The answer I have given shows that we have a clear commitment to funding of public schools. Many of us on this side of the chamber have a personal commitment to that as well—in fact, I think all of us do. And that's where we're up to in the negotiations with the states and territories now. If what you're looking for is another opportunity to say that the Liberals are the same as Labor, you might have to try bit harder!

Senator Allman-Payne, a second supplementary?

Minister: with less than two per cent of public schools across the country being fully funded, according to the Schooling Resource Standard, how can a Labor government continue to justify pouring public money into private schools, 98 per cent of which are overfunded?

Thank you for giving those of us who went to public schools a lecture about public schools—it's really appreciated! As I said, the Albanese government's commitment to public schools is obvious. That's already apparent from the work that we've been doing since we came to office.

A government senator: To all schools!

To all schools, of course. We acknowledge that parents have the right to choose the education system that best suits their family circumstances, but we do want to make sure that all schools receive adequate funding—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Allman-Payne?

I have a point of order, President. My question went very directly to a time frame, and the minister has not given a time frame in any of his answers to my questions.

It went there, broadly, but it also went to how funding is distributed. The minister is being relevant.

Thank you, President. Again, I know that in the Greens' magical world, which never actually involves being in government, that you can click your fingers and fix things straightaway. We see that repeatedly from the Greens. If they'd ever actually had the opportunity to be in government, they'd know that these things have to be negotiated with state and territory governments because they actually deliver the schooling system. I know that's a detail that will never trouble them, given that they'll never actually be in government and have that responsibility, but we're getting on with the job— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The first shipment of raw sugar from Australia to the United Kingdom under a new bilateral free trade agreement arrived in London last week. Before the United Kingdom joined the EU in 1973, the UK was a major market for Australian sugar. But after the UK joined the EU, Australian sugar exports were crushed because of incredibly high import tariffs. Last week's arrival of the 33,000-metric-tonne sugar shipment marks the reopening of a valuable market for Australian sugar producers and exporters. Minister, would you outline what action the Albanese government has taken to pave the way for the first shipment of Australian sugar to the UK in 50 years?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her question in respect of these sugar exports; I know that the state of New South Wales is one of the states which produces the finest sugar in the world.

Thanks to the hard work of the Albanese Labor government to finalise a UK Free trade agreement, last week—

A government senator: We did what?

Yes, we finalised it. Last week, Australian canegrowers witnessed the first shipment of raw sugar arriving in the UK in over 50 years. Now, consumers across the UK will be celebrating the return of Australian-grown sugar to their supermarket shelves. Their scones with jam will be just a little bit sweeter—

Oh, I love that!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Go easy! Calm down!

Order across the chamber! Minister Farrell, please continue.

Some of those Queenslanders will be monarchists. Prior to the Albanese government implementing Australia's trade agreement with the UK, Australian sugar exports faced extremely high import tariffs. The former coalition government let the industry down by failing to implement an agreement with the United Kingdom, but industry could rely on the Albanese government to clean up the mess that we had been left, and we didn't let them down. We prioritised the trade deal with our close trading partner and friend the United Kingdom. The first shipment of tariff-free sugar to the UK market last week is proof that the trade agreement is delivering real, practical benefits for Australian farmers and workers like those heralding from the great state of Queensland and represented by the Queensland Cane Growers Organisation, who I met with yesterday. But the Senate can be assured that the Australian sugar industry isn't the only industry— (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary?

The Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement is considered a gold-standard trade deal. In addition to opening the UK market for Australian sugar, could the minister provide some examples of the other benefits this agreement delivers to Australian farmers, to businesses and to workers?

Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for your first supplementary question. Yes, I can provide that information to you, because our trade deal with the United Kingdom is a gold-standard free trade agreement. It delivers for Australian farmers, businesses and workers by removing import tariffs on over 99 per cent of our $10 billion two-way trade in goods with the United Kingdom. The removal of these border taxes increases opportunities for Australian exports of not only sugar but also beef, sheep meat, wine, honey, dairy and manufactured products like auto parts, electrical equipment and cosmetic products. The agreement also supports our services exporters by making it easier for Australian workers to provide services into the UK market. The Albanese government has delivered a great deal that provides unprecedented benefits for all Australians, creating more higher-paying jobs and commercial opportunities.

Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?

nator O'NEILL () (): Thank you for that uplifting response, Minister. The implementation of free trade agreements is an important element of the government's trade diversification agenda. Could the minister outline what resources are available to Australian farmers and businesses to seize the opportunities delivered under the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her second supplementary question. Yes, I can answer that question for you, Senator O'Neill, because the Albanese Labor government is supporting Australian businesses to enter or expand in the UK market through a range of export services. Examples of support for Australian exporters to make the most of the UK free trade agreement include free, practical assistance from the Austrade TradeStart network to develop export strategies and find valuable contacts in the United Kingdom, including through business missions and trade shows. The financial assistance through the Export Market Development Grants program helps eligible Australian businesses to get a foothold in the United Kingdom market. There are opportunities to participate in the London Landing Pad, where innovative Australian technology companies can scale up into the UK market. These are some of the ways that the Albanese government is helping exporters. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Today is R U OK? Day. We're telling people to have open and honest conversations about their mental health and to reach out if they need to speak to a professional. But when Tasmanians do reach out for professional help, they're put on a waiting list for up to eight months. There just aren't enough psychologists around to fill the demand for their services. What is the government doing to address the critical workforce shortages in the mental health sector that are currently preventing Tasmanians from getting timely access to care?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question, for her advocacy for her state of Tasmania and particularly for her focus on access to health care, because it is a serious issue. It's a serious issue right across the country, but we acknowledge that in Tasmania there are significant workforce shortages, and we need to be putting in place a whole range of responses to that, including training more psychologists. But that will take some time, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care has some measures focused on that to encourage more people in, particularly psychologists. There's certainly a shortage of psychologists here in the ACT, and I know that goes right across the country. There are issues around how we get more people into university to actually train to be psychologists. Then there's how we manage some particular programs and invest in the workforce in Tasmania in the short term.

I know we've been doing a lot of work with the Tasmanian government, looking particularly at how we can invest in the primary healthcare system in Tasmania, because that's under enormous pressure as well. We know that GPs do a lot of the mental health support at the moment. Because of shortages in those other areas, they have that responsibility. Often the first point of contact for people is to go to their GP to undertake, if they need it, a mental health plan. We're doing some work, which you are aware of, with the Tasmanian government in relation to the Primary Care Pilots to train general practice workforce. We're also looking at how we can support GP trainees. So there is a focus on the primary healthcare system at the start. But, yes, we acknowledge that there's a bigger issue on workforce right across the board, and that's going to take a longer time to fix. (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

The National Mental Health Workforce Strategy report, started under the former government, was supposed to be handed down at the end of 2021. As of right now, it's nowhere to be seen. There are references on a government webpage that say health ministers have endorsed the strategy since July 2023, so I'm guessing they've seen it; it's just not public. Why hasn't the report been released?

I don't actually have any information on that, Senator Tyrrell, so I am happy to undertake—perhaps in the interim, as we won't be sitting—for the Minister for Health and Aged Care to respond to you directly on that. I know that there has been a huge amount of work being done through health ministers on health workforce. One of the issues was that before it was abolished—I think by Peter Dutton—we had in place Health Workforce Australia, an independent body that did the planning on what workforce we need and how to get there over the long term. Unfortunately, that body was abolished. Not a lot was done in the meantime, and now we are trying to work with states and territories not only to deliver the workers they need right now but to invest in the chain for the future. That includes looking at how we utilise international workers right across the board. I will undertake for the Health minister to respond to you on the specifics.

Minister, I just remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles. Minister—Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

I don't think I'll ever be a minister, but thank you. The March 2022 budget allocated $60.7 million to implement the 10-year National Mental Health Workforce Strategy. The budget papers suggest that this money is going towards some great programs, but again there was little detail available. We just have to take the government's word for it. When can Australians expect to see the National Mental Health Workforce Strategy Report and the government's response to it?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the supplementary. That's right. The Minister for Health and Aged Care, in our budget, did respond in a range of areas. Mental health is one of those areas, and it needs both a thorough assessment of the current programs and investment in new programs. The minister for health is undertaking that. I acknowledge Senator Tyrrell's questions at estimates in relation to this area, and I'm sure we can have the opportunity in October to go through it in more detail. I think the question relates to the first supplementary. In that instance, the minister for health doesn't know yet, but I have on his behalf said that he will respond to you directly on those matters.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. On Monday, the Melbourne Herald Sun said, 'The average full-time worker is about $3,700 better off than they were a year ago, according to new data analysis being spruiked by Treasurer Jim Chalmers.' With the cost-of-living index up by 9.6 per cent for working households in this past year, core inflation almost twice the top of the RBA's band, interest rates at a 12-year high and real wages down by 2.7 per cent, can you confirm that the Treasurer is spruiking falsehoods and Australians are actually worse off?

The figures used in that article are correct. I went through—

Australians are better off, are they?

Order! Senator Birmingham.

If Senator Birmingham could stop shouting at me, I am responding—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

Well, he wasn't whispering, alright?

Why don't you stand up and say that, Senator Cash? Why don't you stand up and explain what you just called me, what you both call me all the time?

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Urquhart, on a point of order?

I would ask Senator Ruston to withdraw that comment, please.

I believe it was Senator Cash. Once again, as I requested earlier for Senator Watt to withdraw a comment in harmonious spirit of the chamber, Senator Cash, I would ask you to do likewise.

If it assists the chamber, I will withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Cash. Minister Gallagher, please continue.

The figures that Senator Bragg referred to in the article are correct. They relate to the difference in the increase in the WPI that is occurring now under this government compared to the 10-year average of the former government. I am surprised that, on the final day, the opposition would again raise wages in their questions on the record that they had, where wages stagnated for a decade, just as productivity did, while the budget got into a mess. That is what happened under your watch. While you try and go out there and say you are the serious economic managers, let's have a look at the actual reality: the worst budget and the worst budget deficit we have ever had; $1 trillion of debt that we inherited with nothing to show for it; wages that had stagnated for a decade. The 10 years you were in government had the lowest productivity increase for 60 years. That is what you achieved. You then come in here and want a conversation with us about wages while, at the same time, you are voting against almost every cost-of-living measure that we have brought into this place. Let us not forget what you did when we wanted to give households support for their energy bills. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, a first supplementary?

On top of the new superannuation tax, new taxes on trucking and transport, the government recently allowed ASIC to raise levies on financial advisors from $1,100 to $3,200. This was the first increase in these levies since 2019. During a cost-of-living crisis, why is the Labor Party making it harder for Australians to access quality financial advice?

(—) (): My recollection of the funding in that part of ASIC is that it is essentially self-funding, cost-recovered, and that is something that the opposition had supported. So now you are telling me that is not the case, are you? Is that the question that you put to me today? In order to adequately fund and resource ASIC and the financial advisors, fees from financial advice are recouped, as it is through APRA and other national regulators. You are now walking away from that position as well, right? If it is not going to be self-funded, it would come as a cost to the budget, because presumably you would want ASIC appropriately funded in order to regulate the financial system. I would have thought that was something we agreed on. But I am not going to take a lecture from those opposite when they have opposed cheaper medicines, they have opposed energy bill relief and they have opposed extra investment in housing. (Time expired)

The average family's mortgage repayments are up approximately $22,000 since Labor came to government and energy bills are up by more than 15 per cent and heading to increases of 25 per cent. Why is the Treasurer telling Australians that they've never had it so good, whilst your policies continue to make a bad situation even worse?

The Treasurer has never used those words, so don't verbal the Treasurer. In terms of the cost-of-living measures, it is our priority focus to look at how we can support cost-of-living relief without adding to the inflation problem in the economy. That's why we've invested in cheaper medicines. That's why we've invested in cheaper child care. That's why we're expanding Paid Parental Leave. That's why we're getting wages moving, which was the first question. That's why we're investing in more affordable housing. You voted about 14 times this week to oppose that. That is the action that you took when we look at cost-of-living measures. The stronger safety net; rent assistance, JobSeeker and parenting payment increases; the energy bill relief plan; and fee-free TAFE places—these are all focused cost-of-living measures that support the growth in the economy and support the productive capacity of the economy without adding to the inflation problem.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business, Senator Gallagher. Minister, operating a franchise in Australia is almost impossible when we have legislation that allows franchisors to change the rules as they please. The recent decision handed down by Justice Beach in the Mercedes-Benz dealers case has exposed significant flaws in our current franchising code. Does the government acknowledge that the current franchising code allows for exploitation of franchisees?

I thank Senator Van for the question. We do acknowledge that the franchising sector plays an important role in our economy. We have also acknowledged the need to do an independent review of the Franchising Code of Conduct. This falls under the portfolio of the Minister for Small Business. She has appointed small business expert Dr Schaper to conduct this review. That review I think will assist essentially in getting to the heart of the question that you asked, which was around how the franchising code is working. I understand that consultation has already begun through that work and that the sector is engaged on it. We look forward to working with Dr Schaper as this review is undertaken.

In the meantime we have a range of measures to support small business, including franchisees, whether it be through our Small Business Energy Incentive or our energy bill relief. Of course, I think this week we introduced into the parliament the instant asset write-off of $20,000 for small business. I'm working with my colleagues Minister Husic and Minister Collins on ways to ensure that the procurement rules support small business and the important role it plays in the economy.

Senator Van, first supplementary?

Minister, franchisees are not just workers in their business; they are investors and shareholders. Will the government undertake a thorough review of all legislation, not just the code, to ensure that franchisees are adequately protected?

I thank Senator Van for the question. The government's position is that the review of the code is the first step. As I said in my first answer, that review of the code is already underway. One of the questions that the Minister for Small Business has asked of that review is whether the code is fit for purpose. We will wait for that review to be done before we commit to any further review of legislation. We will be wanting to get that report.

We also acknowledge that there's a role for the ACCC here. We have committed to establish a designated complaints function within the ACCC, which will come into place from 1 July 2024 and will allow small business and advocacy groups to submit complaints. So that's another avenue, Senator Van.

Senator Van, a second supplementary question?

VAN () (): Thank you, Minister. Given that franchisees are investors and shareholders in their business, and contribute to a sector worth over $184 billion—around 10 per cent of the Australian economy—do you think that franchisees deserve the protection of the Corporations Act, not just the consumer law?

Thank you. I will see if there's any further information I can provide to Senator Van about that. I think, again, that whilst we're in the middle of an independent review, and it may be that the issues that he raised are explored through that review, that the government will wait for that review. But we have also passed a number of pieces of legislation which, I think, include—certainly for a small business, which would include franchisees—some changes in relation to unfair contract terms. That was specifically so that small businesses were in a better position to reach agreement with large partners. There were also penalties for unconscionable conduct and false or misleading representations. But I would say, Senator Van, that we'll look forward to Dr Schaper's independent review of the code before we make any further commitments.

My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Minister, with fire activity this week throughout the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales, there's evidence that the 2023-24 high-risk weather season is upon us. What is the Commonwealth doing to prepare Australia for the coming bushfire season, and for the future natural disasters we can expect to face?

Thank you, Senator Sheldon, and thank you again for your ongoing work as the government's Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery.

The bushfire seasonal outlook for spring, which was released by AFAC last month, is certainly starting to eventuate. We've seen increased fire activity across the Northern Territory, Queensland and parts of New South Wales over the past week, which serves as a reminder that the higher-risk weather season is now upon us. At the national level, we've made a number of changes since Black Summer—to be better prepared and to make sure that people are as safe as possible. There's now a new fire-danger-rating system to explain to people more clearly the level of risk that they face; we're investing more in mitigation and resilience than any government has ever done; and we have an extra-large water bomber plane, in addition to more large helicopters to do dumps of water.

We are working closely with the state and territory governments, and I know that they're increasing their fuel-reduction activity where it's safe to do so. Particularly for some of those in New South Wales, the smoke they're experiencing around Sydney from prescribed burns at the moment may bring back memories of the Black Summer fires so, given that today is R U OK? Day, I really want to encourage those who need help or someone to talk to as they're experiencing some pretty bad memories to reach out for assistance.

In two weeks time, the Albanese government will be hosting the first-ever National Bushfire Preparedness Summit here in Canberra, bringing together personnel from state and territory governments, emergency services, industry and not-for-profit organisations to share resources and practice national-level coordination and exercises. This is on top of the usual high-risk weather season planning, which involves a range of exercises and briefings across all states and territories and with key stakeholder groups, including media, First Nations groups and disability support organisations.

We have been planning for this coming season for months now, and we're committed to supporting the states and territories in their planning and preparedness for the months ahead.

Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary question?

Thank you for the update, Minister. It's clear that all Australians must prepare for a difficult natural disaster season. In last week alone, we've seen bushfires threaten communities in the Barkly region and I know that the Commonwealth has been working closely with the Northern Territory government to provide support in the response and immediate recovery. Can the minister please update the Senate on what exactly is being done to support the Northern Territory in their response to these bushfires?

Thanks, Senator Sheldon. I'll start by acknowledging the work of Senator McCarthy, the member for Lingiari and the member for Solomon in their strong interest and advocacy for their communities. They have been in regular contact with me and my office to ensure that their communities are supported through this time. I also acknowledge the interest and efforts of Senator Chisholm in working with that local community in his assistant minister role.

As members may be aware, a large fire of over 1.3 million hectares, is currently burning in the Barkly Tableland in the Northern Territory, east of Tennant Creek. The Territory government has issued an emergency situation, which grants the police, fire and emergency services to fight a fire and manage evacuations if the need arises. I understand that conditions are currently relatively stable, but we do need to keep an eye on them. Two strike teams from South Australia have arrived to assist, and we have deployed Australian Defence Force resources to support the protection of critical infrastructure and establish containment lines. We will keep working closely with the Northern Territory government on this.

Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

Thank you for that update regarding the Northern Territory. Can the minister advise the Senate on any existing practices that have been proven to reduce the risks of bushfires?

In addition to using the latest technology to fight fires, Australia's fire services are increasingly listening to the traditional burning practices of our First People to help with preparedness. Yesterday I joined ACT Minister Mick Gentleman along with Parks and Conservation, RFS and Caring for Country staff, and I was very pleased to meet Ngunnawal traditional custodian Brad Bell and his family and learn more about the role that Indigenous knowledge and cultural burning is playing in our fire preparation seasons. Cold burning is increasingly being used to prepare land for bushfires and reduce the fuel load which could burn if a fire came through. Brad was passionate about the joy that he and his family get from being able to share some of the knowledge that their ancestors have had for thousands of years and that we as communities can learn about and apply in order to better prepare ourselves for fire seasons. Brad spoke about reducing water use by applying Indigenous techniques like cultural burning as well as the benefits to land management. It's a practical example of what we get when we listen to our Indigenous people to deliver better results.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Last year the Prime Minister promised cheaper electricity, cheaper mortgages, cheaper cost of living and better pay, but instead Australians have been left with the highest interest rates in 12 years, real wage decline, skyrocketing inflation on fuel and groceries and crippling energy bills. Why are Australians paying the price for the Prime Minister's mismanagement and broken promises to lower costs?

I thank Senator Colbeck for his question. My recollection, Senator Colbeck, was that you were sitting over here somewhere before the last election and you were making decisions that now contribute to all of the economic issues—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck?

On direct relevance: my question was about the Prime Minister's promises, not about where I was sitting in the last term of parliament, and I would ask you to draw the minister to the question.

I will draw the minister to the question, but I also remind you, Senator Colbeck, there was quite considerable preamble to that question, which the minister is also entitled to go to. Minister Farrell, please continue. I have drawn you to the question.

Unlike the former government, we do understand the pressure that's on households in all of the areas which you just mentioned. Can I say what this government, the Albanese government, is doing is putting downward pressure on all of those cost-of-living issues. Remember this: when you had the opportunity to put a cap on gas that would push electricity prices down, what did you do? You voted against it.

One issue that you've mentioned is wages. What has this government being doing? Finally, we're getting some movement in wages, which your government—don't you remember Senator Cormann? He said it was part of your economic strategy to keep wages low. This government is all about trying to deal with the issue of cost of living, to push up wages and to assist those hardworking Australians— (Time expired)

Senator Colbeck, a first supplementary?

The Prime Minister promised to bring Australians together in the national interest. Labor's mismanagement and failure to listen on its Voice proposal is dividing Australians. Why are Australians paying the price of the Prime Minister's mismanagement and broken promises to unite the nation?

I'm disappointed in that question from you, Senator Colbeck, because this Prime Minister has gone out of his way to try and unite Australians by providing recognition for Indigenous Australians through a voice to this parliament, so I completely reject your proposition. Can I talk about some of the things that the Albanese government—

Senator Brown!

has done to assist those people who are finding it tough in the current environment. We've made child care cheaper. We're making medicines cheaper and historic investments in Medicare. We've provided pay rises for aged-care workers, increased the minimum wage and delivered 480,000 fee-free TAFE positions. (Time expired)

Senator Colbeck, a second supplementary?

The Prime Minister promised that when he was elected there would be transparency, accountability and integrity. But the bungled Qatar decision, the ministerial use of RAAF VIP flights, and NDIS costings all demonstrate that Labor is not interested in transparency or accountability.

Senator Watt!

Why are Australians increasingly being kept in the dark because of the Prime Minister's mismanagement and broken promises?

Before I call the minister to answer the question, I remind senators—

Senator Payne!

Kick her out!

Order!

I'm sure there's something in the standing orders against breaches of the Geneva Convention against torture by ministers not answering questions.

Senator Payne, as I think this is your last day we'll allow that on the voices. Before I call the minister, the interjections across the chamber are disorderly and disrespectful. I ask all senators to listen in silence. Minister Farrell.

To the point of order, you won't have to do it anymore! I completely reject the premise of that question.

What a cheek! You were sitting in the cabinet while Scott Morrison, the former Prime Minister, was acquiring ministry after ministry after ministry. He didn't even know that Prime Minister Morrison was the real—

Senator Colbeck, on a point of order?

I am sorry to prolong Senator Payne's misery a little longer with another point of order but I do so on direct relevance. My question was about the Prime Minister's broken promises, not about anything that happened in the previous parliament.

Thank you, Senator Colbeck. I will remind the minister of your question. Minister Farrell.

I've finished my answer. President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

That the Senate take note of all questions asked by coalition members of the government today.

It was yet another question time where not even the scriptwriters for Utopia could have ever dreamed up a script and a story about Labor's aviation policy that is as absurd as it is incompetent. It would be sad if it weren't so important to all Australians and having an impact on all Australians.

Here we went again, debating Minister King's decision to side with Qantas over cheaper airfares for everyday Australians. There have now been nine different and sometimes conflicting excuses as to why this government wants to stifle competition and stop cheaper airfares. As I said, not even the writers of Utopia could have dreamed up a story as ridiculous as this, but sadly, for Australians and for Western Australians, this is absolutely true. Catherine King, when she was asked a question by Sabra Lane on ABC Radio regarding how much the Qatar airport security incident weighed into her decision, said, in answer 1: 'Well, it wasn't a factor in the decision'. A few hours later, the transport minister at her press conference released the government's aviation green paper changing her story. Her next story was: 'It wasn't the only factor, but it was one factor.'

Minister Farrell also advised the chamber during question time, 'I've just travelled through Doha airport on my way back from a holiday a few weeks ago, and I personally don't see any risks.' So, perhaps if the minister actually consulted her colleagues prior to such an important decision, she would have had a more informed view. She wasn't finished yet with her flip-flopping answers. She said last week: 'As you would expect, I consulted colleagues prior to making the decision, but it was my decision.' But her comments conflict with Senator Farrell, who told ABC Radio National, 'I can't say that I specifically had a conversation with her.' The Deputy Prime Minister also told the media that he simply wasn't consulted. There is a sad and sorry theme coming from those opposite, from the government—nine different stories. Utopia couldn't even dream it up.

Let's have a look at the consequences of their disastrous bungling and, quite frankly—I was going to say mistruths—conflicting answers, and that's just from the minister alone. It does matter and it does hurt. It hurts all states and territories. In my case, being a senator for Western Australia, it has significant consequences for every Western Australian who wants to travel, and Western Australians travel a lot. We have to travel a lot given our remoteness.

Travel before COVID was already hideously expensive, and it is now, in many cases, double or more of that. Let's not forget that, when COVID hit, Qantas, our national carrier, closed up shop pretty darn quickly and were very slow to open up shop again. It was airlines like Qatar that brought home Western Australians who had been stranded overseas because of COVID. Critically, they also kept freights coming and going from Western Australia, which was so critically important for our businesses to keep not only their goods going out but also their vital supplies coming in. Quite often we forget this, but I have not forgotten that they were often flying with less than ten passengers onboard but kept flying when our national carrier did not. So it's not much of a reward for their commitment to our state and to our nation.

I've also had a look at data on Perth Airport's website that shows that international passenger numbers still have not recovered to pre-COVID levels. We are a state, as I said, that needs to travel, and you can only assume that those numbers are because people cannot afford to travel out of Western Australia.

WA is already suffering and continues to suffer. I say shame on you, not just for your bungling but also for the impact you're having on Western Australia.

In this question time, Senator Colbeck asked a question accusing the government of not listening to the Australian people about the Voice. I have to say, Australia does not have a good record of listening to our Indigenous people. It wasn't until 1967 that Aboriginal people in our nation—our First Nations Australians—even had the right to vote. Then, in 1973 or thereabouts, Gough Whitlam introduced the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. The Fraser government got rid of that. Then they put in place the National Aboriginal Conference. Then they got rid of that. Then, Bob Hawke put in place—

Senator Pratt, you know the use of props is—

It's not a prop, it's a speaking note.

It's not a speaking note—I can see the other side of it. You are a temporary chair as well—please.

Is it against standing orders to rip up your papers? The National and Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission was put in place by Bob Hawke until, again, we got rid of that.

Senator Pratt, please. You have fine rhetorical skills; let's rely on those.

I will desist from ripping up the pieces of paper, but I think my point is made.

Your point is made.

The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples first met in 2011. The Howard government defunded that. Then First Nations people, with the support of the government, were asked to go away and look at Constitutional recognition and how they might be heard. They didn't want just Constitutional recognition; they wanted to be heard, because our nation has had no history of listening to First Nations people.

The Uluru Statement asks for a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to our parliament. That is something that needs to go in our Constitution. It must go in our Constitution, otherwise—as we've seen throughout history—that Voice, that right to be heard can simply be done away with. The parliament has the power to make such laws, and the people have the power to insist that the parliament make such laws so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can be heard in a Voice to parliament and so it can't be done away with.

Of course, as legislators in this place, we should also know that we have the power to change the laws that the Constitution gives us the power to change. The future laws that govern a Voice can be amended and changed by this parliament, should the referendum be successful. The opposition are seeking to allege that we are not listening to the people. Hundreds and thousands—millions—of Australians are united in the call to listen to Australia's First Nations people.

I rise to take note of all questions. In particular, I'd like to take note of Senator Colbeck's last question today. He asked, 'Why are Australians increasingly being kept in the dark because of the Prime Minister's mismanagement and broken promises?' He also noted that 'the Prime Minister promised that when he was elected there would be transparency, accountability and integrity'. There is nothing that grinds my gears more than when governments refuse to be accountable and transparent. The Prime Minister said, prior to the last election, that his was going to be a different government; he was going to be accountable and he was going to be transparent. Yet, within months of coming to office, that promise was broken.

He refused to release the minutes of the National Cabinet meetings that he had with the premiers, despite saying that he would. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister to release the minutes of those meetings. Those meeting minutes matter, because we need to know what's going on between the federal and state governments. As I've noted many times before in this chamber, our country is being run into the ground by the dysfunctional relationship between the state and federal governments. That's a really key point, and a promise the Prime Minister has broken.

He also said that we would have a royal commission into COVID. He has not met that promise yet. That particular motion has been put forward, here in this chamber, a number of times and Labor and the Greens have voted against it every time. It's another example of Labor's lack of transparency. He's also knocked back an inquiry into the impact of transmission lines on the environment. Here's a government that claims to care about the environment yet refuses to look into the impact on our environment, our biodiversity, our nature, farmlands and our fisheries of wind turbines, both in national parks and offshore, in our fishing reserves. I note that state governments are cracking down on our fishermen at the moment, yet they turn a blind eye to the impact of wind turbines on the environment. The same goes for North Queensland. We've got the Chalumbin wind farm proposal up in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. They can build up there, on the Great Dividing Range, with hardly any environmental approvals, while our farmers are bogged down in both green tape and red tape.

The other point that's worth noting is that Prime Minister Albanese has been unable to provide any details on the Voice. When he was asked in a radio interview if he'd read the pages behind the so-called one-page document of the Voice, his words were: 'No, I haven't. Why would I?' What type of response is that, to holding a referendum on which we're going to spend—I think it's $80 million to hold the referendum on the day, and there's been a couple of hundred million dollars in advertising, so I'm led to led to believe the cost is about $300 million. When you're spending so much taxpayer money when we have a cost-of-living crisis—that's what he should be focused on, because he's broken many promises there—what type of response is that? That just goes to show he's treating the Australian public with contempt over this Voice. Yet again, you have to ask yourself, 'What is he hiding?' Why is he so keen to not talk about the pages that lead into that one page of the Voice? There are 120 pages that have been written behind that one page. You need to go into the detail, but we know that the Prime Minister is not a details man. He's all hot air. He's all form, no substance—and this is why the country is going backwards.

The other thing that he voted on, and the Labor Party voted against in this chamber, was the proposal to have a quarterly report on energy pricing so that people could properly benchmark energy prices. What gets measured, gets improved. It is very important that we get a benchmark on our energy prices that is broken down by the source of the energy and shows how much each particular energy type is. Why on earth did Labor and the Greens vote against that? If they were serious about controlling energy costs and the price of electricity, they would disclose the price of energy on a consistent national basis so that consumers and taxpayers can be properly informed about the cost of living. So I call out the Albanese government for their lack of transparency, their lack of accountability and their lack of details around the things that matter.

I also rise to take note of the questions asked by opposition senators in this question time—in particular, the question by Senator Colbeck.

In the premise of his question, he said that our Prime Minister had failed to listen to the Australian people when it came to the Voice proposal. As we head into the final weeks of this campaign—as we head into the final weeks before referendum day on 14 October—what a disappointing thing it is to try to further divide and mislead when it comes to the Voice and when it comes to what this referendum is all about. We know this referendum is, at its very heart, about listening. That is its purpose, that is in its design. This is about listening when we haven't listened before; it's about listening, even when it's hard to do so; and it's about listening with purpose: listening to build a better future, listening to change the way we do things and listening to improve our policies in this country. It's about listening to close a gap that has persisted, year after year, decade after decade. Through good intent, through good will and through good investment that gap has persisted and persisted, and we have let Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country down.

That's because governments have not listened; they have not listened with purpose. I, for one, am not willing to accept that: I'm not willing to accept the gaps which exist. I'm not willing to exist with more of the same. Let's be absolutely clear: a 'no' vote is acceptance of more of the same. A 'yes' vote is the extension of a hand—a willingness to do better, to do differently. A 'yes' vote is taking that hand and stepping forward together in unity, with purpose, further down that path of reconciliation so we can do things better in this country, because we haven't done well enough.

We haven't done well enough by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country. We haven't done well enough by the children who are let down year after year in the education system. We haven't done well enough by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people incarcerated at a rate much, much higher than their peers. We haven't done well enough when it comes to life expectancy, when we have a life-expectancy gap of almost a decade in this country. We haven't done well enough when it comes to their maternal health—when it comes to the healthy birth of babies in this country. These gaps persist and they pervade, and they will continue to persist and pervade if we don't change our path.

There is an opportunity to change our path. There is an opportunity to accept a generous offer, given to the Australian public—a generous offer which allows us to do differently. It's an offer to listen, it's an offer to share and it's an offer to work together in codesign to make this country better and to close the gap. This is an opportunity for unity. For months, it has been used as an opportunity to divide by certain people from the coalition who want to use it as an opportunity to divide and who see it as an opportunity to pursue a path of more of the same. It's not everyone: I acknowledge those opposite, in particular, Senator Bragg, and others in the other chamber, who have stood up for their values. They have stood up after many, many years of advocacy and work to try to do better. I acknowledge them.

This is our opportunity to do better. This is our opportunity to listen with purpose. This is our opportunity to deliver something different. A vote for no is a vote for the status quo, and I cannot accept the status quo. We should not accept the status quo! We have an opportunity to do better in this country. We have an opportunity to listen with purpose. We have an opportunity to deliver something different. That's why I'm voting yes, and I hope that every Australian opens their heart to the idea that together we can do better. Together this can be an opportunity to unite us, and not divide us.

I rise to take note of the answers given by the ministers in the government today. It is another day, and it is another reminder that the economic policies of the government are perfectly calibrated for the vested interests which enrich their campaign machines and their preselections through their donations. The reality is that, when you are so busy lining the coffers of the people that sent you to Canberra, you don't have time to do any work for the Australian people. That is the central problem with the government's economic policy. Everything is about grifting and delivering for unions and big super funds and other fellow travellers. The list of priorities is so distorted, and that is the central problem that the government and the country face. In what universe does a country with a productivity and inflation problem need pattern bargaining, the abolition of labour hire and more and more money sent to a locked box called superannuation, where a 25-year-old prospective first home buyer can see their hard-earned money 35 years from now? The reality is that, until Australia has a government that is prepared to look at governing for all the people of Australia and to take seriously the dual problems the country has—high inflation, driven by public spending, and low productivity—I fear that we are looking at a very difficult economic situation in the next few years.

It is true that, if you do a survey of people in Australia, you will find that high mortgage costs and high rents are the major problems that are facing the Australian people. Under this government, we've seen 11 interest rate rises in a row. The Reserve Bank has been trying very hard to rein in inflation in an environment where the government can't say no to their favourite vested interests and they keep on spending. They've already had two budgets which increase spending, and the government come in here and tell us that they are running a neutral budget policy. The reason they say it's neutral is that they have the gall to come into this chamber and argue that their new spending is offset by the energy price caps and that the energy price caps are the parliament enacting a law to reduce inflation, effectively. If it were that easy then we could just pass a law tomorrow saying, 'Okay, we're now setting inflation at three per cent, the top of the RBA's band, for the next five years.' We're getting to the stage of having Argentine style economic policy here in Australia. The whole show is run by the unions and the super funds, and the government is leading its economic debate by arguing that price caps and legislating away inflation are the way to go. We are in very dangerous territory, I would say.

The other point I wanted to make is that, when you have no time to look at the broader challenges facing the Australian people, you do, of course, just focus on the issues that are important to the vested interests. What else do the vested interests want? One example is that the super funds have asked the government to legislate an objective of super so they can keep all the money in the funds and never be forced to release any money for first home buyers who might want to use their super for a first home. I can't find any Australian that can say to me, 'The No. 1 priority facing us is that we want to see the objective of superannuation legislated,' but it is a very good example of the twisted priorities of a government that is run by vested interests. As I say, when the preselections, the funding and the organisational arrangements are all run by the unions and the super funds, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that all the policies and all the rhetoric about the economy comes from outside.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Education (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to public schools.

I note today we've seen another underwhelming response from the Labor government on their commitment to public schools in this country. It's no secret that our public school system is on the brink. Ninety-eight per cent of public schools in the country are underfunded. Every year, they're robbed of $6.6 billion while the private system continues to be overfunded. That means public schools don't have the money to pay for the bare minimum level of resourcing they need to deliver a basic education for Australia's 2.6 million public school students.

Teachers are abandoning the profession, results are falling and millions of kids are being left behind. The underfunding of public schools in this country has created a national crisis. We have teachers burning out in droves, we have students struggling to be seen and heard and we have a system that's permanently baking in inequality. This year, more than 100,000 kids will graduate from public schools having never experienced a school funded to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Let's be crystal clear about what the schooling resource standard is. It's the minimum funding that a school needs to function. In fact, it's the minimum funding needed to get 80 per cent of kids across the line. We're not even talking about getting every public-school kid across the line. That's how low the bar for the federal government has been pulled down by Labor and coalition governments.

We are at a tipping point, with public schools declining despite the best efforts of teachers, parents and carers, who are forced to dig deeper and deeper into their own pockets. Families are left with an impossible choice: to send their child to a public school that doesn't have the resources it needs to provide a good education or to send them to the private school up the road that gets public funding and charges fees they can barely afford. If Labor wants to get serious about the cost of living then they need to get serious about public education. This is the last chance we have to save our public schools.

Today the Greens introduced a bill to remove the arbitrary cap on federal funding for public schools. We are moving to replace the 20 per cent cap with a 25 per cent minimum funding requirement. This would have the immediate effect of bringing a majority of public schools in this country up to their minimum funding requirement. We're at a crisis point, and our public schools can't wait a minute longer. Our bill also requires the education minister to ensure that every school-age child in Australia has access to a fully funded government school. This change is a no-brainer for the education minister. It really should be the base requirement.

I have been a public-school teacher for 30 years. I understand the impacts of workload intensification and the frustration and the exhaustion of teachers who cannot provide young people with the educational resources that they know those kids need to succeed. I know the struggles of parents and carers, who are trying to keep their kids afloat, including those parents of kids with 'school can't', and I know that the system is at its breaking point. Every time I leave this place, I talk to more and more teachers who are ready to walk out the door, and we cannot afford to lose them. We need full funding now. For every kid in an underresourced public school around this country: the Greens will keep fighting for you. And for every teacher who is overworked, underpaid, frustrated and exhausted: the Greens will continue to fight for you too.

Question agreed to.

I table a letter from the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security relating to an order for the production of documents concerning special purpose aircraft guidelines.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present Delegated legislation monitor 10 of 2023.

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report on the Department of Defence annual report 2021-22.

On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report 10 of 2023.

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 500th report of the committee, Report 500: inquiry into procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA—interim report.

On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's Report by statement: review of the 2023 relisting of three organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia, together with accompanying documents, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This work, in relation to Australia's sexual consent laws, is perhaps some of the most important work I will ever do in this place. First, I'd like to convey my deep gratitude and respect, on behalf of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, to those victims-survivors who had the courage and the generosity of spirit to give evidence to our committee. The committee was truly inspired by those victims-survivors who were motivated by their own abuse and trauma to become advocates for others.

We thank everyone who made submissions to this inquiry. I personally thank all members of the secretariat who were involved—including the secretary, Sophie Dunstone, and Monika Sheppard—for their outstanding work in providing support to the inquiry. I would also like to convey thanks to Hansard and Broadcasting, who heard the evidence with the rest of us as we went through this committee. In that regard, could I mention Keith Andrew in particular.

I pay my deep respects to Senator Green for moving the motion referring this matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, and I also pay my deep respects to Senator Waters for her engagement in the work of this inquiry and her longstanding advocacy in relation to these matters. I'd also like to thank those journalists and members of the media who gave coverage to the important work of this inquiry, including Claudia Long, Natassia Chrysanthos, Amy Remeikis, Finn McHugh, Matt Killoran, Kristine Ziwica and Hugo Timms. It is so important that we have independent media who provide coverage of these important matters so that the concerns which are considered are communicated to people across Australia.

The evidence of the prevalence of sexual assault in this country is truly horrifying. The most recent ABS study on personal safety in Australia found that one in five Australian women—just reflect on that: one in five Australian women—have suffered sexual assault, as have one in 20 Australian men. The case for action is overwhelming.

The work of the inquiry has culminated in a 116-page report and 17 recommendations, which were made unanimously by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Each and every one of these recommendations has the unanimous support of all members of the committee.

I would like now to speak about those recommendations and the importance of those recommendations. Recommendation 1 is to ensure that the agency of victims-survivors is paramount and central in relation to these issues and that it be actively respected and upheld. Recommendation 2 is that Australian jurisdictions which have recently legislated an affirmative consent model design and implement a framework for the evaluation of that standard in practice, with outcomes to be reported to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General. Recommendation 3 is that evaluations of the impact of affirmative consent models be an annual standing item on the agenda of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General. This issue must remain a standing agenda item when this country's attorneys-general gather to discuss the issues relating to Australian law. Recommendation 4 is that the Australian Law Reform Commission include an affirmative consent standard in any proposal to harmonise Australia's sexual consent laws and take into account the evidence of the operation of recently adopted affirmative consent laws. Recommendation 5 was that the Commonwealth government, after it receives the recommendations from Australian Law Reform Commission, act on those recommendations and respond within six months. This is urgent. The time for delay has passed. Action is required now. Recommendation 6 relates to the urgent need for funding of research into these matters. Recommendation 7 is in relation to protocols for providing assistance to those victims-survivors who report their sexual assaults to law enforcement agencies so those victims-survivors understand the process which they will be going through. Recommendation 8 is for specialised and trauma informed legal services to provide support to victims-survivors.

These are recommendations which go across the whole of society, because this is Australian society's issue. It is an issue for all of us. I come back to that original shocking figure: one in five Australian women have been the subject of a sexual assault, as have one in 20 Australian men. This is a whole-of-society issue.

Recommendation 9 is for a restorative justice pilot program to explore more sensitive and trauma informed approaches in the criminal justice system to sexual violence, provided that the agency of the victim-survivor remains central. Recommendation 10 is for the Police Ministers Council to consider a guide for specialist education and training for law enforcement officers. Recommendation 11 is in relation to justices of our courts having a bench book to give them guidance with respect to the conduct of trials in this area. Recommendation 12 is in respect of jury directions in the course of trials in relation to sexual assaults. Recommendations 13 and 14 are about consistent and effective delivery of comprehensive respectful relationships education in Australian schools and universities.

Now I wish to say something about our tertiary sector, our university sector. This is the subject of recommendations 15 to 17. I want to quote first an outstanding Australian Sharna Bremner, who was the founder and director of End Rape on Campus. She gave evidence to our committee with her fellow director Nina Funnell. We should all carefully reflect on this. She said:

A really common theme among the students we've supported over the last eight-nine years now is, 'My rape was bad, but the way my university responded was worse.' We hear very often the effects of retraumatisation once students have reported. They feel incredibly unsupported, even if they can find where to report in the first place.

We heard the most disturbing evidence in relation to the failure of our university sector to appropriately respond to the issue of sexual violence on university campuses around this nation. I want to quote directly from the report. This is a paragraph that we considered very carefully in terms of composing this inquiry report. Paragraph 5.105 states:

It is a searing indictment of Australia's university sector and the regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), that dedicated and courageous advocates for university students who have suffered from sexual violence on campus should hold the view that the process of making complaints and how universities and the regulator deal with such complaints is causing great trauma to the victims of sexual violence. In the strongest terms, this committee says that is a shameful state of affairs. It is unacceptable.

Paragraph 5.112 states:

In these circumstances, the committee considers that Australian taxpayers' money—

in relation to a proposed consent education scheme—

has not been well spent and, more regrettably, an opportunity to provide engaging, informative and effective material—

had been lost. Paragraph 5.118 states:

Given the evidence, the committee lacks confidence that the university sector (as a whole) will respond appropriately to the crisis without strong intervention. This is a regrettable conclusion that the committee does not come to lightly. The time for 'working groups' has passed. In the committee's view, a taskforce—

an independent task force—

with effective powers should be immediately established to ensure accountability in the university sector.

That's what this committee recommends.

I rise to speak to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry report into sexual consent laws. At the outset, as the chair of that inquiry, Senator Paul Scarr, did, I commend not only the participants in that inquiry but also all of the incredibly brave, tenacious and gutsy witnesses who shared their stories with us and who have drawn strength from their hideous experiences and are now harnessing incredible internal wells of strength to use their experiences to try to fix the system and make sure that other people—and it's mostly women—don't face the same kinds of traumatic experiences. I give an absolute shout-out and incredible respect to all of those survivors who have borne up under such a shitty discriminatory system and who are now doing all that they can to try to change that system.

So few women report their sexual assault and even fewer rapes and sexual assaults end in conviction. Women know that the criminal justice system is stacked against them—that's why they don't report. Women know that police won't believe them. Women know that they will be put on trial when it comes to court. I commend Senator Nita Green, who initiated this inquiry to look at whether the disparity of consent laws around the country is exacerbating that and what more can be done in this space. I'm sure Senator Green would love to be speaking to this report. She's overseas for work.

We have reached a consensus report, here. It's a strong report. It's a dignified report and it makes some incredibly strong and powerful recommendations. I'm so proud that the Senate was able to come to a consensus on this crucial matter. It feels this like we have a moment here. I would urge the government to really take these recommendations seriously and to act on them. Chief amongst the recommendations, and there are so many good ones in here, I want to focus first on the recommendation for an independent taskforce to oversight universities and the inadequate current tertiary so-called oversight body, TEQSA—to actually oversight both of those bodies for their appalling handling of sexual assault allegations and sexual assaults on campus, so far.

Students have been calling for a taskforce because the universities and TEQSA have been so woeful at dealing with the legions of rapes and sexual assaults that happen on campus. I'm so proud that this committee has endorsed those calls and has recommended that we do have an independent taskforce charged with looking at these issues—not just to look on campus and on residence but to look at the policies and practices of universities to prevent and respond to sexual assault, including:

That transparency one is key because what we saw throughout the whole course of the hearing was brand protection by Universities Australia. They wouldn't tell us which of the vice-chancellors had blocked the sexual-consent education campaign that $1.5 million of taxpayers' money had been allocated to develop and that was pulled, redesigned and redelivered in the blandest of ways that didn't offend their sensibilities. They were protecting their brands; they were not protecting their students. It's an abomination and that is exactly why we need a taskforce, because they are not keeping students safe on campus, and everybody deserves that safety.

I note the work of End Rape on Campus, who have been incredible advocates for many years now. Sharna Bremner and Nina Funnell have already been thanked and acknowledged by Senator Scarr. They have worked so hard on these issues for so long, often on a volunteer basis and with the vicarious trauma weighing heavily upon them. They are incredible advocates. We've also had, recently, the emergence of the STOP Campaign run by some other outstanding young students. Just this morning, they published their submission to the Australian Universities Accord panel, which further details experiences of sexual violence and institutional betrayal in university residence halls and student accommodation. They have echoed the call of this committee, and we have echoed their call, for the establishment of an independent taskforce to oversight universities and TEQSA to actually prevent and respond to sexual violence.

I am calling on Minister Clare to get serious and establish this taskforce. I know you've set up a working group and I know you want to wait another six months until the final University Accord reforms come down. That is too long to wait. Universities have shown they are not up to the task. TEQSA is a regulator that is just missing in action. And meanwhile thousands of students, mostly young women but also young men, are facing utterly preventable sexual assault and rape on campus. Our universities should be places of learning, not rape factories. We need an independent taskforce urgently to oversight this and fix this problem. I'm so pleased that there's been a consensus recommendation for that by all political parties engaged in this inquiry. Don't wait for that panel; get on and do it.

There were a number of other really important recommendations made in this report. The harmonisation of consent the laws was chief amongst them. I want to commend the Attorney-General's Department, who already have quite a bit of work underway in this place and space. I acknowledge there's some work being undertaken by the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to look at the state of state and territory consent laws, and to consider harmonising them. This report has said, 'Good, get on and do that.' The Australian Law Reform Commission has also been charged with looking at the comparative treatment of consent laws and whether there's an affirmative consent model that actually requires an enthusiastic yes to be the definition of consent. The current situation in some of our states and territories is that you have a hideous defence called 'mistake of fact' where an alleged perpetrator can simply not check and carry on and then contend that they weren't told no, so there must have been consent.

Silence does not mean consent. Only enthusiastic and ongoing and an excited yes means yes. We're starting to see affirmative consent laws in some states and territories, and everybody should have the benefit of them nationally. We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws. It makes it more confusing for people to know what their rights are, and, moreover, it makes it really hard to design a national prevention campaign. The other recommendation of this seminal report is that we need respectful relationships education and a national campaign that starts in schools and goes right through to universities. Witnesses told us it is really difficult to design a national campaign when you have this patchwork of laws that sends a confusing message. It means that if you're going to schoolies across the border you've got a different set of laws that apply to you if you're sexually assaulted.

We already know there are far too many barriers for women coming forward to the justice system and to police when they're sexually assaulted. We should be removing as many of those barriers as possible. That's why it's crucial that one of the other recommendations is that we have more sensitive and trauma-informed approaches to sexual violence in the criminal justice system. We desperately need culture change in the police force. We desperately need culture change and proper trauma training for the judiciary. Again, I acknowledge the Attorney-General's Department has some work underway in that regard, which is really positive, but we've all seen the horror reports of the culture of policing, and women don't feel safe to disclose their sexual assaults, and they certainly don't feel like they will get access to justice when they do. We've got to fix that.

One of the recommendations of this report says, 'Let's think about possible other ways of providing justice to survivors of sexual violence.' It's a really interesting debate to have, and the witnesses were divided, because we want to make sure that survivors are making that choice as to how they choose to seek justice. If they don't want to have an adversarial process that should be their choice. Likewise, we don't want to send a message that rape is anything less than a criminal offence that is preventable, and we should not be allowing or permitting or sentencing less harshly than it deserves. So there are some really crucial conversations to be had in this space.

I do want to finish up by saying that we deal with a lot of sensitive issues in this place, and I would like to thank the other committee members and the secretariat for the grace with which this inquiry was conducted. I know the witnesses felt heard and supported, and that is so crucial, because it wasn't just those witnesses. Everybody listening to that was sent the message that they will be believed, that they will be fought for and that we will attempt to now fix the justice system and the legal system and the university sector to try to reduce the rates of sexual violence. That's a really honourable outcome, and I hope now that the government accepts this invitation to do those very things and importantly gets on and establishes this independent task force to oversight universities and the TEQSA regulator, in particular. We can do so much better.

I'm really proud of this report. We stand with survivors and thank you for your guts and your courage, and we will keep working to try and fix this system for all those who will be subjected to it in the future.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games preparedness. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The nation was shocked a few months ago, back in July, when the Premier of Victoria announced that he would be cancelling the proposed Victorian Commonwealth Games and potentially raised the prospect of the first Commonwealth Games not to go ahead since the Second World War. We'd already established this committee when that decision was made. It was really established to be bit of a goodwill tour, if you like. We were hoping to visit regional Victoria, of course.

This committee was also looking at the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032. We're really about trying to maximise the benefits of these major events to communities that will be involved right across of Australia. Our focus did change a bit then, after the cancellation. We're still trying to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. I won't have time this evening to go through all of the barriers we faced as a committee. I want to thank those witnesses who came along, especially from those country towns that we visited, people from other towns who came to Bendigo and also the affected communities in Brisbane, which I'll get to.

I want to thank the members of the committee who worked hard on this report. Senator Allman-Payne has been working on these issues for a long time in Brisbane. I thank shadow ministers Ruston and McKenzie, who have responsibilities in these areas. We were also lucky enough to have the former federal minister for sport, Senator Richard Colbeck. Senators White and Sterle were also involved.

I think this is a very important report because it's time for action. The nation was shocked. No-one is blaming the federal government for this monumental stuff up. It's squarely at the feet of the Victorian government and others will hold Mr Andrews to account. I am really focused now on what we do to solve a problem. Being in government is about sometimes solving problems. Not all the problems that come across your desk are your fault. Sometimes they're completely out of your hands. Sometimes they're acts of God. But being in government, being the Prime Minister, means that ultimately the buck stops with you to help solve issues. As was often said to our committee, the problem we have is that while the Victorian government has cancelled these games, ultimately if we do not proceed with the 2026 Commonwealth Games, the world will blame Australia for that happening. It'll be our reputation and our nation that is on the hook for it.

Our committee's report, that I table today, is making a simple request of the government, and that is to get their hands dirty and try and help with solutions. Maybe there can't be a solution. Maybe it's too expensive. Maybe it's too difficult. At the moment the federal government, you'd have to say, is doing next to nothing to help. That's being generous. This committee heard that the Minister for Sport, Minister Wells, is yet to even receive a briefing about the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games from her department. There hasn't even been a written briefing and certainly not any sort of sit down: 'Let's have a bit of a roundtable discussion about what we can do; whiteboard it. What can we do to help?' Nothing like that. The department itself has only had a cursory discussion with the Commonwealth Games Australia organisation, who are the responsible organisation for running the games. They have not had a formal meeting. They seem to have had a little bit of a chat on the side of a seminar.

What is going on here in Canberra? Why isn't there more proactivity? In contrast we have the mayor of the Gold Coast, from a non-capital city town, doing more to try to help than the whole federal government. Councillor Tom Tate is a good mate of mine. He's a force of nature. But at least he's trying to do something. He's having a go. All we ask now with this report is: please, please can the federal government just have a go? Have a go, try and help support our athletes who have all been shocked and disappointed by this decision and had their future training plans for the next few years completely up-ended. They're having a big go. See if you can have a go to help fix this.

Briefly, too, I wanted to touch on the affected communities of Brisbane. Our report makes some interim recommendations for the Queensland government. I want to put on the record that the Queensland government cooperated with our inquiry. They did haven't to, of course, as a state government, but they made available their relevant agency and departmental heads. We very much appreciate their cooperation. That was in contrast to the Victorian government, which I'll just finish with briefly.

It seems to me that a better job could be done in Queensland to consult with the local communities of East Brisbane and Redlands about the impact of major infrastructure that's going into the area. In particular, at this stage, the plans are to remove the East Brisbane State School, which has a long heritage. We think that the plans to do that should be reviewed. The plans to host athletics at the Gabba were not part of our original bid. It wasn't explained very clearly to us why there was this change. We think there should be an immediate review that involves the local communities, which weren't involved in this decision, before we go too far and cannot reverse this decision. More importantly, if athletics were to stay at the Gabba, there needs to be a much better job in providing a solution for the school students and families in East Brisbane. The current proposal has the school shifted to Coorparoo. It's not fit for purpose for that community. It is two kilometres away from the existing school. A lot of these people do not have car transport because it is an inner-city suburb, so they rely on public transport or they walk or ride to school. It's going to cause upheaval for so many young students. Surely there is a solution that can be found within East Brisbane with the billions of dollars that are being spent on finding an appropriate spot for a school there if the Gabba is to be redeveloped in the current way.

Finally, I might have a longer contribution on the issues that arose with the Victorian government stonewalling in this inquiry. There are major issues around the powers of the Senate to compel the production of documents and information. We have these powers for a reason. This is an area where clearly there is a legislative interest of the Commonwealth government given our involvement with hosting major events like the Commonwealth Games. The Victorian government was within its rights not to cooperate with our inquiry. That is a well established precedent to ensure the comity between our house of parliament and state government houses of parliament. But in this instance the Victorian government sought to extend that shield, that protection, to third parties, such as Ernst & Young, legal firms, former ministers, areas that I don't think the Senate has properly considered before. It is one thing to allow state governments not to appear at inquiries; it is totally another thing for them to be able to somehow stop other individuals or organisations from giving evidence to a federal parliamentary inquiry in an area that we have a clear interest. We are seeking further advice on this. This is an interim report and more might be said about that issue down the track.

McKENZIE (—) (): I too rise to speak to the interim report into the Commonwealth Games cancellation. The pathway to Paris for our athletes has been absolutely devastated by Daniel Andrews' callous decision to cancel the Commonwealth Games 2026 and his absolute determination to stop anyone else from picking up the slack and finding an Australian solution to a Commonwealth Games in 2026. We have an enviable reputation around the world of being a very proud, patriotic and, shall I say, victorious nation on many, many sporting fields. We have hosted Olympics, we have hosted Commonwealth Games, and just recently we have hosted the Women's FIFA World Cup to great success right across the nation.

At the start of this year, the green-and-gold runway was lined with events that would have taken us through to Olympics 2032, with our homegrown athletes in tip-top condition, fully primed to take as many medals as possible at that Olympic event and the Commonwealth Games was a key part of that pathway. But as Senator Canavan alluded to, late last year, we got knowledge that there was concern from international and domestic stakeholders about the pace of rollout of the Commonwealth Games in facilities and in consultation with regional communities. Regional councils and big capitals like Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat and others have had no real definitive direct engagement with the state government about what the expectation was.

Experts in the field knew that if you wanted to have the transport connections to shift tens of thousands of supporters, administrators, volunteers and athletes around quickly and easily in the middle of a Commonwealth Games, you would needed to have started planning and building them now. That was not happening on transport corridors, on accommodation facilities or, indeed, on some of the key sporting facilities that needed to be up and being used in four years time. Culminate that with a federal government that comes to power and doesn't accelerate partnership with the Victorian government to get these transport infrastructure projects going but presses pause on the infrastructure projects and throws them into a 90-day infrastructure review, which is now in excess of is 30 days and still waiting. So there were lots of concerns when setting this inquiry up. On the cancellation, we went from a $2.6 billion cost in the May state Victorian budget this year to, a mere eight weeks later, the games costing $7 billion. What the inquiry has shown is that the people who put forward that original bid of $2.6 billion still stand by their figures. I don't know what has happened in the last 18 months, but something is wrong in my home state of Victoria for Daniel Andrews to stand up and be unable to substantiate why that has blown out to the tune of $7 billion. And expert after expert we heard from couldn't explain it either.

What the really powerful impact and effect of a Senate inquiry is is that it shines a torch on governments, on people and on community's issues, and on their poor behaviour. Victorians, athletes and, indeed, the global community have been devastated by this decision, and they made their devastation very, very clear on the cancellation. We heard from local communities, local sporting groups, athletes from around the country and the communities who were the biggest losers of this cancellation. And they still have no clarity from the state government on what assistance is going to be provided to them—or, indeed, what appetite there is more broadly across Australia for an Australian solution to the global embarrassment that this Labor premier has caused.

It isn't always easy to front up to Australian senators in an inquiry to answer tough questions and be accountable for your decisions. So I want to say thank you to the Queensland government for actually fronting up, and for allowing their organising committee to front up, so that we could ask genuine and sensible questions about how ready they are for the upcoming Olympic Games. But the Premier of Victoria threw an invisibility blanket—an invisibility cloak, if you like—over not only his ministers but over all his public servants and the organising committee. They're still getting paid, I might say; 90 non-executive roles are still on the payroll in Victoria but no games are being delivered. They're not allowed to talk to anybody about what they were or weren't doing and what were or weren't their directions. He also chose to throw that invisibility cloak—'Nothing to see here'—over officials and companies, like Deloitte, EY and PwC et cetera, which I know have been subject to great questioning here in the Senate. Daniel Andrews chose to silence their evidence to a Senate committee. We had the extraordinary situation where EY executives who did the original costings were claiming cabinet in confidence! Sorry; they've never been in cabinet and they're never going to be in cabinet. That ducking of public accountability and transparency with taxpayer money was, I think, a highlight of the committee.

I want to turn to the lack of consultation with communities outside Melbourne. Let's remember, when the decision to host the Victoria 2026 Commonwealth Games was made by the Premier, it was six months out from a state election. This was the state election post COVID, where he had locked everybody in their homes for a very, very long time—and we're still dealing with the mental health impacts of that at the moment, particularly on young people. The regions in particular had turned their backs on Daniel Andrews because we didn't have COVID but we were still being locked in our homes. But, six months out from the state election, he announced that the regions were going to host the Commonwealth Games. The regions were sincerely and genuinely excited about that opportunity to showcase their love of sport and everything they have to offer on the global stage. So pardon me if I'm a little cynical about the fact that the announcement came based on an EY report of a $2.6 billion cost, only to find it cancelled less than two years later and our international reputation ruined.

This mismanagement was incredibly embarrassing. I'll turn the chamber to the interim report to see the advice we got from experts on what should be done in the lead-up to hosting an international event of this size and complexity, and what shouldn't. Time and time again, we heard advice being given to the Victorian government organising committee about the cost blowouts or that maybe you should think about not holding rugby in Gippsland because there ain't no rugby fields et cetera—It's great to see a former Wallaby here in the chamber to hear this. They were given advice on how to make this more affordable, more attainable and more achievable, and they ignored the advice. In particular, the minister responsible, Minister Allan, refused that advice.

Today, with the tabling of this report, I urge the federal government and all state and territory governments to listen to the impacts that the mismanagement has had on local communities, businesses, councils, community groups, our athletes and our para-athletes in particular, who made it very clear that the Commonwealth Games was the opportunity for classification on home soil, which would have been so expensive and unattainable. It was a key, critical component to having a full para team at the Olympics in 2032, which he has absolutely stuffed.

I commend the report, and I know Senator Ruston will have more to say on this as the shadow sports minister, but I hope we can find an Australian solution. We spoke to everyone, from the Australian Olympic Committee, the Paralympic Committee, local councils to sporting organisations. We asked them, 'If a roundtable were held to actually find an Australian solution, rectify our international reputation and provide that critical classification opportunity for our para-athletes, would you be keen to show up?' To a man and a woman, they said that they would. I commend this interim report to the Senate.

I want to make a few comments on the interim report on Australia's preparedness to host the Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth Games and the committee process today. To begin with, I want to thank the secretariat of the rural and regional affairs and transport Senate committee. Juggling multiple, demanding inquiries takes real effort, but the Senate committee staff meet the challenge every time, so thank you.

Firstly, I want to address some of the commentary that has been made about Victoria's international reputation following the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games and the doubt that has been cast on Victoria's ability to host major events. As the committee heard, Melbourne is the only city in the world that hosts both a tennis grand slam and a Formula 1 grand prix. It hosts the Melbourne Cup and the AFL grand final and is the only city in the world that has six international standard sporting facilities on the fringe of the CBD.

As a former director of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust, I can tell you that there is no place in Australia or, indeed, the region that is more revered and sought after to host events than Victoria. Just last week, a quarter of a million people went to the AFL finals over three days. The AFL finals season is a huge event in itself. To argue that somehow Victoria's ability or reputation in pulling off large events has been irreparably damaged is to miss the point, because Victoria demonstrates that this isn't the case on a weekly basis and the culture of Victorians going to events remains unchanged.

It's also worth pointing out that the nature of hosting events like the Commonwealth Games is obviously changing. Clearly, hosting the Commonwealth Games at this point in time is difficult. We know this because, in addition to the Victorian decision, we saw the Commonwealth Games move from Durban to Birmingham in 2022 due to financial reasons and we also saw little appetite to take on the 2026 games initially. Of course, in the last month or so, we have seen Alberta step back from a future bid to host the games in Canada.

In relation to Victoria, the committee also heard about the impact that the compressed time frames for the games had on getting the planning right. There are also disruptive economic factors at play that are important and supply-side constraints that make planning and hosting more challenging than in the past. Supply-chain issues, shortages of essential building materials and a war in Europe, as well as domestic and global inflationary pressures, are all playing a part in making things more difficult, it seems, not just for Victoria but for many stakeholders involved in these events. It is important we acknowledge these pressures.

In relation to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics: with nine years to go and one of the longest lead times in recent Olympics history, it's important to highlight the evidence the committee received from the Australian Olympic Committee and the Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, which is that the International Olympic Committee is satisfied with the development, costing and progress of the Brisbane games so far. That is worth repeating: according to the International Olympic Committee in Switzerland, the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games are on track. From that point of view, while I think there is some utility for the Senate to be examining Australia's capacity to host the games nine years out, as you would expect, consultation with the community is still ongoing and some details are yet to be finalised. That is not only normal but what you would expect for an event of this scale which is slated to take place in nine years time.

I also want to make a few observations about the development of the Gabba. That stadium in the heart of Brisbane is due to be the central focal point of the games. At the conclusion of the games, the Gabba will also function as a world-class sporting venue for Queensland. Given this dual purpose, it is not unreasonable by any stretch for the Queensland government to upgrade the stadium. My experience on the MCG Trust tells me that stadiums have a relatively short life span. It is an international infrastructural standard that is constantly improving itself, which means that you can't have the primary Olympic venue not being state of the art. What is more, you cannot use an old venue that has limited disability access, restricted change room use for women and inefficient seating capacity to host an Olympics. I also note that this plan to redevelop the Gabba fits with the IOC's New Norm approach to Olympic infrastructure, where hosts must only build new infrastructure where there is a demand for it post the Olympics to avoid the construction of any white elephants and the cost of upkeeping them.

On that New Norm and infrastructure point, I just want to draw out what I have found to be a central tension of this inquiry. On the one hand, national sporting organisations want state-of-the-art venues and infrastructure in which to train, compete and grow their sports. But, on the other hand, we have governments, as well as the International Olympic Committee and the Australian Olympic Committee, committing to the New Norm, which dictates that taxpayers shouldn't fund the construction of venues that won't have decent demand attached to them after the games. Both of these points of view are understandable, and the tension between them demands that we strike a genuine balance between them in the design, execution and planning of infrastructure for sporting events of the kind the committee is looking at.

Given that, it is a shame that the coalition senators on this inquiry have not actually engaged with the central questions. What do we build? When do we build it? For whom do we build it? On the other hand, the coalition has criticised the Queensland government for apparently misplaced infrastructure programs, which in fact develop venues that are needed in Queensland after the Olympics. They claim that the plans for venues are unwieldy and uncertain and that the support from the Commonwealth doesn't go far enough.

On the other hand, in relation to the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, the coalition go the other way. Despite the Victorian government pledging that $2 billion will be spent on the development of regional venues in consultation with councils and sports, according to the coalition rhetoric, Victorian sport infrastructure is being left behind and national sporting organisations in Australia will never recover. Critics can't have it both ways. It's difficult to claim that the Olympics in Brisbane is too showy and doesn't have enough behind it, and then in the next breath suggest that changes to the Victorian government's original plans for sporting infrastructure were too ambitious and too uncertain and therefore will be the ruin of community infrastructure and national sporting organisations in Victoria.

Of course, these things are never as clear cut as that. The fact is that regional Victoria will get legacy infrastructure under the Victorian government's withdrawal plan, and Queensland will get legacy infrastructure under the Olympic plan. National sporting organisations will get improvements and investments under both plans. It is a decent and fair balance that I think both the Queensland and Victorian governments have struck. In my view, they have found a way to balance the central tension of large-scale sporting event planning in the modern day—that is, resisting building new venues and infrastructure that turn into white elephants while still providing state-of-the-art venues and facilities for the years following.

Finally, I want to address another issue that came up in the committee process, which is the question of federal government funding for the Brisbane 2032 Olympics and infrastructure programs. There have been claims that the government is cutting Olympic infrastructure projects. This is not true. The government has guaranteed funding for 16 minor venues, plus the construction of the Brisbane area. This, of course, stands in contrast to the inaction of the previous government, who never committed to anything. In July 2021, former prime minister Scott Morrison promised to fund the Olympics fifty-fifty. Of course, as was often the case with the former government, money was promised and never delivered. In the life of the Morrison government, not a cent was allocated in a federal budget to the Brisbane Olympics. As usual, they announced billions of dollars in Olympic funding and then proceeded to never put the money in the forward estimates or appropriate a cent from Treasury to spend on the Olympic Games. What it actually took to get any money allocated to the Olympics in Brisbane was five months of a federal Labor government, a fact that the coalition find uncomfortable.

I'm looking forward to the last few hearings of this committee and the tabling of the final report. There is room for the Senate to look into these matters—however, I think the process is diminished by politicisation. If critics claim to care about sport, infrastructure and our international reputation then it is unhelpful to do nothing but wreck debates and politicise issues for political gain in a way that leaves no one materially better off   —not sports in Australia, not our reputation and not the Senate's understanding of the issues. It's a bit disappointing given that there are genuinely things to learn from this process and room to expand on the questions of how to deliver major events and get a great result in Brisbane in 2032. I know my Albanese government colleagues will do our best to answer these questions, so I look forward to the remainder of the committee process. I may be the last speaker, so I also seek leave to continue my remarks later.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into the Commonwealth and Paralympic Games preparedness was on foot even before the devastating blow to our international sporting reputation by the decision of the Daniel Andrews Labor government in Victoria to cancel the 2026 Commonwealth Games. For some time, the opposition had genuine concerns about the federal and state governments' preparedness for these major sporting events coming up. The main reason we have been concerned is that the importance of the legacy that is left by these events cannot be understated. We want to maximise the opportunity because the opportunity is for all Australians—particularly young Australians. We want to encourage young Australians to participate in community sport and have active lives. We know that elite athletes and their performances, particularly on home turf, make such as a difference to people and young people getting out—as witnessed by the Matildas in the last little while and the huge increase in the number of young girls and boys who have now enrolled to play football.

The decision by the Victorian government was a terrible decision for major events in this country. It was a terrible decision for Australia but it was most particularly a terrible decision for young Australians, whom we want to live active and healthy lifestyles. It was also a complete disaster for our international reputation and it was another example of how Labor can't manage money. Most particularly, we have to call out the disappointment to our athletes, who we know have been working so hard to compete on home soil in 2026 and to use the games for qualifications for future major sporting events so they can continue their upward trajectory in their sporting careers. During the inquiry, we heard a really moving testimony from Ms Catherine Clark, the CEO of Paralympics Australia. I want to bring to the attention of the chamber the particular importance of the 2026 Commonwealth Games that is so fundamental to our Paralympians and para-athletes. Ms Clark said:

Classification is not well understood, and the complexity of it and the cost of it—of sending athletes overseas—is why domestic, national and international standard events are so critical. If we want to have a team that is big enough and that can compete in 2032, we cannot respond later; we must respond now.

She also said:

The inability for us to have our para-athletes in an integrated event in the Commonwealth Games is one less opportunity to have people with a disability on the national and international stage performing. You can't be what you can't see.

That is why I find it absolutely unbelievable that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Sport have stood up for Australian athletes, including our amazing para-athletes, and sought to find, or work with our states and territories to find, an Australian solution to a problem that has been caused by Daniel Andrews in Victoria. In fact, the Prime Minister has probably shown how extraordinarily ignorant he is about the importance of this issue because the only thing I've ever heard him state is something like, 'It's the decision of the Victorian government'. That's absolutely shameful. This is a decision that was made by Victoria and by Daniel Andrews in Victoria that has had a huge impact on Australia, Australians and Australian athletes. This is not just something for Victoria, and the Prime Minister has just demonstrated his absolute refusal to take responsibility for this country by his refusal to accept that this is damaging to Australia's reputation.

The coalition have always understood the importance of things like the Commonwealth games. Competing on home soil has a certain importance, and creating legacy sporting infrastructure is something that is so terribly important. That's why we were proud, while in government, of being able to secure not only the 2026 Commonwealth games but the FIFA World Cup, which has just been such a huge success, the Paralympic and Olympic Games in 2032 and the 2027 Netball World Cup and Rugby World Cup. All were to be held here in Australia. The reason we sought them is because we know there is huge importance in Australian athletes competing at home and the impact that has on young Australians who want to participate and the impact it has on getting young Australians out and active, because we know that is so good for their physical and mental health. It is complete ignorance to suggest that the Australian government shouldn't have anything to do with finding a solution to the mess created by Victoria. The reality is that the Prime Minister has failed our athletes and future generations of Australians who would have been the main beneficiaries of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games.

Finally, I just want to put on the record again my concern at the lack of urgency there seems to be here to find a solution for 2026 games in Australia. It's clear that the federal Labor government has not engaged with Commonwealth Games Australia. We know from questioning witnesses that the Commonwealth Games Australia have not engaged with the minister. They haven't engaged with states and territories. They haven't engaged with anyone. In fact, we understood that there's only been one communication, which has been from the Gold Coast, so one local government area is the sum total of the engagement of the federal government in relation to finding an Australian solution for something that is an Australian problem. This is absolutely outstanding when you consider the incredible damage that the cancellation of the games has on Australia and particularly our relationship with our close friends in the Commonwealth.

We're calling on the federal government, the Albanese Labor government, to get its head out of the sand and take up this opportunity to deliver the Commonwealth Games on Australian soil, honouring our commitment to the Commonwealth Games and the Commonwealth by getting on with the job. You cannot abrogate responsibility for this. This is an Australian problem. You are the Australian government. Take responsibility for the role that the Australian people elected to you to do and stop trying to pretend that this is not your problem. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present the interim report of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On 30 November last year the Senate resolved to establish a select committee on Australia's disaster resilience. As of Tuesday 12 September, the committee has received over 138 submissions from organisations and everyday Australians, many of whom are still living with impacts of bushfires and floods. As I speak, Northern Territory firefighters are battling a megablaze that has broken containment lines and is bearing down on the 3,000 residents of Tennant Creek. Australia and the rest of the world are experiencing an increase in disasters fuelled by a rapidly changing climate. The Department of Home Affairs told the committee the cost of natural disasters is estimated to increase from an average of $18.2 billion in 2016 to $73 billion in 2060. Findings from the recent royal commission into natural disasters show that extreme weather increases rates of stress, depression anxiety and, of course, PTSD.

I think most Australians would agree that, as a nation, we are resilient. There is no doubt about that. But you can only have so much resilience. Bushfires and floods are not new to us. We are tough. In the face of danger and threats to our communities, many of us go above and beyond to help each other or even put our lives on the line. The committee heard many of these stories, often bringing tears to our eyes. But we need to be more resilient and we need to be more prepared, and this is not just a job for the governments but for all Australians, unfortunately. We all have to contribute.

The big message to the committee from communities impacted by these increasing natural disasters is: without the Australian Defence Force, things would have been much, much, much worse. A number of submissions said that the ADF should not be the main agency for disaster relief, while others, including the Local Government Association of Queensland, argue that the ADF should complement existing capabilities. Defence has stated that it will, of course respond to government direction, but that deployment to natural disasters will undermine its capacity to fulfil its primary mission of defending Australia and its interests. Defence also went on to state the establishment of a force—

Senator Lambie, the time allocated for the debate has expired. If you were to seek leave, you could return to speak to this on the next sitting Thursday. I'm advised by the Clerk that you could also seek leave to incorporate the rest of your speech. I just ask you for an indication of your preference.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of the 500th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest 11 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 13 September 2023. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present government responses to reports of the following committees: the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, on its inquiry into the administration of the referendum into an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on its review of police powers. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the

Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report:

Administration of the referendum into an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

SEPTEMBER 2023

Introduction

On 28 March 2023, the Senate referred an inquiry into the administration of the referendum into an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee (the Committee).

On 9 June 2023, the Committee tabled a report titled Administration of the referendum into an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The Government's formal response to the recommendation of the Report follows below.

Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report:

Administration of t he referendum into an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 2023

Majority:

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report:

Review of police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime and the continuing detention order regime

The Government thanks the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) for its work on these complex and important issues and provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that Division 3A of the Crimes Act 1914 be amended so that:

sicIntelligence Services Act 2001

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges that receiving prompt notification from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) after a declaration has been made will enhance the ability of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM), and the Committee to perform relevant oversight functions.

While the Commonwealth Ombudsman does not hold a specific oversight function once a prescribed security zone is in place, early notification of a declaration would alert the Commonwealth Ombudsman to the exercise of powers in the prescribed security zone.

The INSLM has a statutory role in ensuring Australia's counter-terrorism and national security legislation is effective, remains proportionate to terrorism or national security threats, remains necessary and is consistent with Australia's international obligations. The Committee similarly has a statutory role in reviewing the operation, effectiveness and implications of the use of Division 3A powers. Early notification of a declaration would help ensure the INSLM and Committee are appropriately informed to conduct relevant reviews, which serve an important function in holding Government to account for maintaining fit for purpose, proportionate counter-terrorism legislation, and ensuring the proper exercise of powers. Early notification to the Committee would also support the Committee's role in monitoring and reviewing the performance of the AFP of its Division 3A functions and enhance the Committee's oversight of those functions.

The Government notes that under the Administrative Arrangements Order that commenced on 14 October 2022, the Attorney-General is the Minister responsible for making declarations of prescribed security zones. The Attorney-General is also the Minister who will be responsible for providing a written statement of reasons to the Committee when the Crimes Act 1914 (the Crimes Act) is amended in accordance with this recommendation.

The Government also notes that a person's right to complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or applicable state or territory police oversight body about the conduct of a police officer exercising Division 3A powers would not be affected if the police officer did not advise them of this right due to circumstances of urgency.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Crimes Act 1914 be amended to provide a list of particular matters the Minister must consider before declaring a prescribed security zone, including:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Government supports the Committee's observation that a list of specific factors may provide guidance to Ministers and agencies that would aid in efficiently preparing and making a declaration at what would likely be a time of heightened uncertainty.

The Government also supports clarifying in the legislation that if the Minister makes a declaration for a period shorter than 28 days, the declaration will cease to be in force at the end of that shorter time period. This would provide more certainty as to the duration of a declaration.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the stop, search and seizure powers under Subsections 3UK(l), (2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 be extended to 7 December 2025.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The stop, search and seizure powers under subsections 3UK(l), (2) and (3) of the Crimes Act are important measures under Australia's counter-terrorism response framework. There is an ongoing need to ensure police can respond and prevent terrorist attacks, and the inclusion of a sunset mechanism reflects the need to continually review the powers to ensure they are appropriate to respond to the evolving threat environment.

The Government proposes to extend the sunset date to 7 December 2026 to align with the intent of the Committee's recommendation, which was to allow a three-year extension of the powers to 7 December 2025. In 2022 the Parliament agreed to extend the sunset powers for one year to 7 December 2023, to enable sufficient time for the Government to consider the Committee's recommendations. Given Parliament's consideration of the powers last year, the Government considers it appropriate to extend the sunset period for a further three years.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to provide the Commi ttee with the option to conduct a further review prior to the sunset date into the operation, effectiveness and implications of the stop, search and seizure powers in Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

This will be implemented through the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which is currently before Parliament.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department consider the appropriateness of the impleme ntation of a duty judge system where applications for search warrants could be received and considered on an expedited basis.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Attorney-General's Department, in consultation with the Australian Federal Police, has considered the appropriateness of the implementation of a 'duty judge system' for search warrants. Following this consideration, the Commonwealth's position is that implementation of such as system by all states and territories could deliver benefits, such as ensuring consistent, ready access across jurisdictions to those authorised to issue search warrants (being magistrates, or justices of the peace or other persons employed in a court of a state or territory). A clear framework for access to issuing officers ensures warrants can be issued to meet operational needs as necessary.

The Commonwealth has identified that the Legal Issues Working Group of the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee is the appropriate forum to progress this matter with representatives from state and territory jurisdictions. The Commonwealth will propose that the working group's Forward Work Plan be amended to consider options for implementing a duty judge system, noting the states and territories will need to agree to the Forward Work Plan, and that the progress of this proposal (including resourcing) is ultimately a matter for each state and territory.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends an amendment to section 3UEA of the Crimes Act 1914 requiring any agency that enters premises in accordance with section 3UE to obtain an ex post facto warrant as soon as possible following the use of warrantless entry powers.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

A mechanism by which an ex post facto assessment is undertaken of whether or not an officer who has entered premises in accordance with section 3UEA has done so properly, and in accordance with the law, would provide assurance that powers have been exercised only in response to extraordinary circumstances and would enhance oversight of these powers.

However, the complexity and significance of this matter warrants further consideration and consultation to develop an appropriate legislative response. This includes having regard to the consequences that should flow from an assessment that the powers were not exercised appropriately.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the control order regime as outlined in Division 104 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 be extended to 7 December 2025.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The control order regime achieves the legitimate objective of protecting Australia's national security interests, including preventing terrorist acts.

The Government proposes to extend the sunset date to 7 December 2026 to align with the intent of the Committee's recommendation, which was to allow a three-year extension of the powers to 7 December 2025. In 2022, the Parliament agreed to extend the sunset powers for one year to 7 December 2023, to enable sufficient time for the Government to consider the Committee's recommendations. Given Parliament's consideration of the powers last year, the Government· considers it appropriate to extend the sunset period for a further three years.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the definition of 'issuing court' in the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to only the Federal C ourt of Australia.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Limiting the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia acknowledges the serious and extraordinary nature of those orders.

The Government does not propose to cease or invalidate any decisions and orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia before the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) is amended in accordance with this recommendation.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that section 29 of the I ntelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may commence a review of Division 104 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 prior to the sunset of the provisions.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

This will be implemented through the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which is currently before Parliament.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that section 104.5(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to ali gn the conditions that can be imposed as part of the control orders regime with proposed Schedule 1, clause 105.7A of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Aligning control order and extended supervision order conditions would enable a court to impose any condition that is reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act or preventing a terrorist act. This would include, but would not be limited to, a range of therapeutic conditions for example, requiring the offender to attend treatment, rehabilitation or intervention programs or activities or participate in case management. This would provide the court with the greatest discretion to tailor control order conditions to mitigate the specific risk posed by an individual and their circumstances, rather than be limited to a confined list of possible controls.

The implementation of this recommendation has been informed by the review conducted in response to recommendation 11.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends the Australian Government undertake a review of the range of conditions that could be imposed as part of a control order, and report ba ck to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security by July 2022.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Attorney-General's Department has conducted this review having regard to the need to ensure that control orders conditions are suitably tailored to protect the community from the risk of terrorism posed by a particular individual, and only infringe that individual's rights and freedoms to the extent that is necessary and proportionate for that purpose. The review found that the proposed alignment of conditions would be fit for purpose and appropriate.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that Division 104 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to provide that the Australian Federal Police may add conditions w ith the consent of both parties, provided that:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Government supports inserting a new provision into Division 104 that would allow the AFP or the controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order or interim control order, including to add new conditions to the order, and allow the court to make the variation if satisfied that:

The Government supports allowing either party to withdraw consent to the variation at any time before the issuing court determine the variation application.

The Government considers it appropriate that variations by consent should be available to all controlees. However, the Government proposes to include a requirement that, where the controlee is under 18 years of age, the court must consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether each new or varied control order condition is appropriate, and that the controlee's views must be taken into account for the purposes of determining what is in their best interests. The Government also proposes to require that consent be provided on the controlee's behalf by a parent or guardian in these circumstances.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department:

Criminal Code Act 1995,

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Government provides specific legal aid funding to state and territory legal aid commissions, predominantly through the Expensive Commonwealth Criminal Cases Fund, for costs incurred in defending clients in Commonwealth post-sentence matters, including control orders issued under Division 104 of the Criminal Code, and continuing detention orders and extended supervision orders—issued under Division 105Aofthe Criminal Code.

The Attorney-General's Department will provide a report on the relevant legal aid costs under the Expensive Commonwealth Criminal Cases Fund. This will be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as soon as practicable.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the preventative detention order regime in Division 105 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 be continued for a period of three years and sunset on 7 December 2025.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Preventative detention orders remain an important part of Australia's counter-terrorism framework. In extraordinary circumstances, preventative detention orders may continue to be a proportionate and necessary measure that enable police to keep the community safe by disrupting and responding to terrorist activities at an early stage.

The Government proposes to extend the sunset date to 7 December 2026 to align with the intent of the Committee's recommendation, which was to allow a three-year extension of the powers to 7 December 2025. In 2022 the Parliament agreed to extend the sunset powers for one year to 7 December 2023, to enable sufficient time for the Government to consider the Committee's recommendations. Given Parliament's consideration of the powers last year, the Government considers it appropriate to extend the sunset period for a further three years.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that Division 105 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to remove:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The effect of implementing this recommendation would be that only persons who hold a commission as Judge of a state or territory Supreme Court, or as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia could be appointed as an issuing authority for preventative detention orders.

Limiting the power to issue preventative detention orders to judges of superior courts reflects the serious and extraordinary nature of those orders, and the significant volume and complexity of evidence that must be considered in making these decisions.

For a person who held an appointment as an issuing authority immediately before the Criminal Code is amended in accordance with this recommendation, and who will no longer be eligible to be an issuing authority after the amendments commence, the Government considers that their appointment should lapse immediately after the amendments commence. The amendments should not affect the continuity of any order or decision made prior to commencement by a person's whose appointment as an issuing authority lapses upon commencement.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that section 29 of the Intelligence Service Act 2001 be amended to provide that the Committee may commence a review the provisions of Division 105 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 prior to the sunset of the provisions.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

This will be implemented through the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which is currently before Parliament.

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends that section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to provide that the Committee may conduct a further review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of the continuing detention order regime in Division 105 A of the Criminal Code Act 1995 prior to the sunset date.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

·This will be implemented through the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which is currently before Parliament.

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs coordinates with relevant State and Territory Departments to source appropriate accommodations to facilitate interim and confirmed continuing detention orders. The Committee rec ommends coordination with New South Wales on appropriate accommodation should start as soon as possible, noting the number of eligible offenders due to be released in the next five years.

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Government supports the ongoing coordination between the Department of Home Affairs and relevant state and territory departments to locate appropriate accommodation to facilitate terrorist offenders subject to interim and confirmed continuing detention orders.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to require public reporting requirements on the use and implementation of Division 105A, including:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Expanding the public reporting requirements in relation to Division 105A would improve transparency in relation to the operation and resourcing of the post-sentence order scheme, and the management of terrorist offenders subject to a post-sentence order. The topics identified in this recommendation are critical to a holistic understanding of the operation of the scheme, which annual reporting aims to support.

In respect of the government response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on its review of police powers, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table a statement on revitalising national planning in vocational education and training by the Minister for Skills and Training, Mr O'Connor.

by leave—I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Qatar Airways, the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations funding agreements, meetings concerning the fisheries industry, and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to make a contribution on the ministerial statement, tabled just now, from Minister O'Connor on the government's work on revitalising national planning in vocational education and training.

Before coming to this place, I had a career in the union movement; I have spent my life representing and defending Australian workers. This means that I have seen what good, skilled jobs mean to people. It also means that I have seen how government policies, some good and some not so good, impact on workers and materially change people's daily lives and prospects. The establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia and the government's fee-free TAFE program are two of those good policies which clearly make a difference to the lives of Australians.

In the first half of 2023, more than 214,300 Australians enrolled in fee-free courses. That's about the same amount of people as the population of Hobart. That's worth saying again: in just six months, more than 200,000 Australians have chosen to enrol in vocational education. Encouragingly, the data shows that the policy is targeting the people who need and want to upskill the most. Of the 214,300 enrolments, 60 per cent are women and 23 per cent are jobseekers. And there are 15,269 students who live with a disability and 6,845 students who are of First Nations origin. That is targeted and effective public policy in action.

In a labour market where the work of women in feminised industries is consistently undervalued, the fact that more women are training and retraining to acquire new skills and to access well-paid secure jobs is fantastic. That's nearly 130,000 Australian women who are moving up the pay ladder and using the fee-free TAFE model to invest in their abilities and in their futures, and they're earning higher wages as a result. There's also a link between vocational education and training and further higher education. People who start a course at TAFE are more likely to progress even further through the vocational and higher education systems.

There are certainly challenges in our labour market at the moment. After the COVID pandemic, certain parts of the Australian jobs market have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic levels. We've all heard about and experienced the impacts that labour shortages in essential services and frontline sectors have on prices and supply chains, and on Australians accessing the services they need, like child care, health care, cyberservices, nursing and in the construction area. We've heard that this problem is complex. I've seen the labour market develop and evolve over my career, and it's not just one thing that can change the way Australians work. I have always said that it's a complex ecosystem that needs broad reform and that it has to be looked at as a whole. Nevertheless, we're moving towards a service based economy and a more highly-skilled economy. Of course there will always be whole range of jobs that are necessary to make Australia work; we should support all sorts of jobs and all sorts of work. But it's true that we need more people to deliver health care, child care, hospitality services and trades, among other things. In short, we need people to do skilled work more than we used to.

This brings me back to Jobs and Skills Australia and fee-free TAFE. In the last six months, the most popular courses Australia-wide were: Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, the Diploma of Nursing, Certificate IV in Accounting and Bookkeeping, Certificate III in Individual Support and Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. This list of enrolments again demonstrates that fee-free TAFE is working. It’s a policy designed to encourage Australians to meet the skills shortages and labour demands we are seeing in particular parts of the economy. Again, the data shows that the policy is working.

Lastly, I want to briefly talk about my experiences with fee-free TAFE out in the real world. We spend a lot of time in this place discussing issues and making contributions about the lives of Australians, so whenever I get the chance to see policies in action in real life, I grab it with both hands. A month or so ago I got the chance to visit Wodonga TAFE in the electorate of Indi and I saw firsthand how the fee-free TAFE mechanism is working there. Enrolments have increased across a whole range of vocational education courses there, particularly in the training of electricians and in construction management. Given the pressures on supply chains and the labour shortages in the construction industry, this sort of thing is positive to see. This is particularly important in our regions, where it is often the case that the problems of a city are compounded by distance and demand. This is the case in Wodonga, where social and affordable housing is harder to access because it's harder to build. It's a similar story for childcare deserts in our regions, where there are three children per childcare place. Labour shortages of childcare workers and early-childhood educators make it hard for families to balance the responsibilities of work and care. Fee-free TAFE and Jobs and Skills Australia seek to correct this mismatch between supply and demand by making it easier for Australians in the regions to acquire the skills their communities need and to stay in their communities to work.

The goal for Jobs and Skills Australia and the fee-free TAFE program was 180,000 enrolments this year. The program has exceeded that goal by more than 30,000 people. Clearly, people want to upskill and be part of our government's investment in Australia's skill base. They want to take the opportunity to build their wages and their communities. I am proud of the work of Jobs and Skills Australia and proud of the Australians who have taken up the opportunity to develop their skills, and I congratulate Minister O'Connor for this fantastic result.

Debate adjourned.

Senator Davey, are you seeking to take note of the statement?

We actually want to take note of all of the ministerial statements and seek leave to continue our remarks. But I would like to specifically take note of the response to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan order for production of documents, to speak on today.

Senator Davey, you have the call.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

We made a simple request for the government to produce documents relating to the new agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which the Minister announced on 22 August. She announced, with great bravado, a new agreement with all basin states except for Victoria, which I note has stayed very strong and consistent throughout the implementation of the Basin Plan. She then presented just last week to the other chamber a new amendment bill—a bill to amend the Water Act 2007— to amend the Basin Plan 2012 and to implement some water market reforms.

The documents that we requested are required to help us evaluate and assess the bill that is currently being debated in the House of Representatives. The fact that the minister did not foresee this and is claiming she needs more time to put together the information required beggars belief, particularly given that this was clearly not a decision made on 22 August. There was a lot of work preceding that announcement on 22 August. Indeed, the independent review of the Water for the Environment Special Account, completed in December 2021, indicated that an extension of timelines for the implementation of the Basin Plan would be required and that the Basin Plan would not be delivered by June 2024. It beggars belief that it took the minister more than 12 months to ask the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for formal advice to that end, even though the writing had been on the wall since this government took the keys to the Lodge.

Clearly, conversations have been occurring between the government and basin states. Clearly, consideration has been given as to what options there are to deliver the remaining water, including water efficiency infrastructure projects and voluntary water purchases. Indeed, the minister herself made much of opening an online-only consultation calling for people to present her with new projects and ideas to help deliver the Basin Plan. All of that consultation, all of those submissions from right across the basin are sitting on her desk. There has not been a thorough consultation report to say what has been heard or what projects are being pursued.

We have seen the opening of an expressions-of-interest tender process to purchase 46 gigalitres of water from certain valleys in the basin, which is another report that the minister is sitting on. We were just calling on documents, information to help us evaluate the amendment that is coming into this place, that is going to a committee, and the minister has responded with two paragraphs. It is not good enough. We call on the minister to provide us with a date when she can actually provide the documents that the Senate has asked for and show respect for our chamber, because the two paragraphs that she has provided is an absolute slap in the face for the processes of this Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the current lobbying rules are ineffective, do not meet public expectations and should be reformed to:

(a) ensure all lobbyists are captured by a code of conduct;

(b) provide effective deterrents and penalties for lobbyists who break the rules; and

(c) allow Australians to know which lobbyists have been given sponsored passes to access the corridors of Parliament House.

I move this motion today to discuss the appalling state of our lobbying rules in Australia. 'Rules' is, in fact, generous when you look at the set up that we have allowed to have in place when it comes to lobbying in Parliament House, in the people's house. Most Australians probably assume that we have decent lobbying laws. Yes, we have a lobbyist register and I will talk about that later, but we also have some 2,000 people who have sponsored passes and we have no idea who they are. Access is a very good thing. This is the people's house. There should be access, but Australians should know who is accessing their house.

Recently. my office and I were speaking with a US barrister about the differences between our countries' lobbying rules. Again, most Australians probably assume that we have equivalent or probably better lobbying rules than the United States has, but she was shocked and appalled. Although their system is far from perfect, in the US there are laws preventing the undue and unethical influence of private interests on people in congress. What's more, there are criminal penalties for breaking those laws, which can involve jail time. In Australia there are no laws. There is a code, which in reality is more of a guideline, and it doesn't even apply to the majority of lobbyists, just those that lobby on behalf of other companies—professional lobbyists.

It's clear to me that many people in this chamber just don't care about this. This has been in place for a long time, and we have seen no action from either side of politics. When raising concerns with people in the relevant positions, I've been dismissed like I'm trying to cause an issue about something that really isn't of importance. This does matter. This matters because influence over decisions that we make in this place has a huge effect on the people that we are here to represent. We are here to make decisions that should be in their best interests.

The first thing to note is that not all lobbyists are captured by the code of conduct. The code only captures those lobbyists that lobby on behalf of other companies, and in my experience these people are least likely to be an issue. Most people don't know it but in-house lobbyists—most lobbyists—are not subject to the code. This means that we don't know who they are, we don't know where they're from and we don't know what they're doing. They're not bound by any professional or ethical standards, and they're completely free to wander the building to bump into MPs and senators. The insidious nature of this power cannot be overstated. When there is controversial legislation it's not uncommon to see scores of in-house lobbyists lining the hallways seeking to influence the votes of parliamentarians. That's their job. But the community expects public scrutiny of who these lobbyists are and why they wield such power. Worse than that, in-house lobbyists are not even held to any ethical standard

Here's where it really breaks down. Under the code, a former staffer is prevented from lobbying on behalf of a company that they had policy responsibility for while they were in government. So if they were a staffer or an adviser in the communications minister's office they couldn't go to lobby and then take on Sportsbet as a client. But nothing prevents them from just getting a job at Sportsbet as its in-house lobbyist. This is not an actual example, but I do have a long list of actual examples. This loophole is so far below any conceivable ethical standard. Our rules are so loose that we allow people who have worked in the government to go and advise companies on how to manipulate the government.

This leads me to my second point. There are no deterrents or penalties for lobbyists who break the rules. Let's say a lobbyist seriously breaches the rules. The worst penalty that they can receive is a three-month break from lobbying. Sit it out for a few months. Go and put your feet up. Work in the office. You just can't come into Parliament House. In 90 days time, you're back in business. That's not a bad outcome for a serious breach of a generally unenforced code. The Attorney-General can enforce a more strict penalty, but none that would act as an effective deterrent. Last time I checked at estimates no Attorney-General had actually used that power.

I challenge the average Australian to try to get signed in and wander the halls to see an MP or a senator. It's not possible. But, if you're a lobbyist, you run free in these halls. You can get into every corner of this building, lurk outside offices, hang out at Aussies or the trough and orchestrate chance encounters with politicians and their staff. The community can't do this. And yet we have no idea who these people are. There is no requirement for any transparency over the use of these passes. There are 2,000 people roaming the halls. We have no idea who they are.

One of the only things we are signed up to where we do have obligations is the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which expressly prohibits officials from engaging with big tobacco companies on matters of public health policy. Yet, because we have such a loose system, we know that they wander these halls. I can't imagine that they are here for a long black at the cafe. They are here to ensure that the parliament doesn't enact tougher rules on their products. I notice that a tobacco bill was introduced into the House this week, so I expect that we will be seeing even more of them in the parliament over the next few months.

Australians want more transparency. They want more integrity from the government. Indeed, we've been promised it. We hear talk of transparency and accountability, but when it comes to lobbying reforms we're not hearing anything. This is important. This is important for our democracy. I urge the government to look into this area and to listen to Australians who are saying: 'We want that transparency. We want to know who is potentially influencing decisions.'

We're in the situation where most states and territories are far ahead of the Commonwealth in this regard. In New South Wales there are ethical obligations that apply generally to all those who are lobbying government officials, not just third-party lobbyists. In Queensland, lobbying activities are disclosed publicly every fortnight. Here in the ACT lobbying activities are also disclosed publicly so that the people of the ACT can see precisely which interests are trying to influence the government. It's not enough to talk about integrity, though we hear many talk a big game in that regard; it's time that we ensure that there is integrity in all corners of our parliamentary system. We need better lobbying rules. In fact, we need laws. Australians deserve better.

I thank Senator Shoebridge for letting me speak first. I'm always brief, Senator Shoebridge. I never take any other approach. Every word matters.

I just indicate that the government doesn't support the motion. The lobbying code of conduct was indeed created by the last Labor government. It was one of the many integrity measures introduced by Kevin Rudd's Labor government, which included a new code of conduct for ministerial staff and a strengthened ministerial code. When tabling the lobbying code in this place in May 2008 the responsible minister, our former colleague senator John Faulkner, outlined the purpose of the code. It is instructive reading, and I commend his speech to Senator David Pocock and the Senate. In May 2008 Senator Faulkner said:

The government recognises that lobbying is a legitimate activity and part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the government and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the individual and community as a whole.

However, there is a legitimate concern that ministers, their staff and officials who are the target of lobbying activities are not always fully informed as to the identity of the people who have engaged a lobbyist to speak on their behalf. The government believes that this information can be fundamental to the integrity of its decisions and should be freely available to those who are lobbied and to the wider public.

For these reasons, the code and associated register aim to ensure government representatives know who is engaged in lobbying and whose interests are being promoted. When a third-party lobbyist contacts a government representative, including a minister, the code requires that they confirm they are on the register and disclose whose interests they are representing. The code also imposes an obligation on government representatives: they must not knowingly be a party to lobbying by a third-party lobbyist not on the register. There are penalties associated with the failure to comply with the code, including a power for the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to bar a lobbyist who has committed a serious breach.

I acknowledge that not everyone is happy with the scope of the lobbying code. Some, like Senator Pocock, want registration obligations to extend to in-house lobbyists. Some want to ban lobbying altogether. The government believes that the code strikes the right balance, recognising the right of lobbyists to lobby but placing conditions on the manner of third-party lobbying through mandatory registration and disclosure obligations.

I would caution that there are indeed competing principles that are engaged here. I think Senator Faulkner's outline of some of those competing principles is useful. I wouldn't start this debate by referring to the codification of lobbyist rules in other jurisdictions, because they do not have perfect results either. Extensive codification sometimes produces perverse results. There are many fine elements of the American system, but I would not hold it up as an example of that kind of codification, because it has not produced the result that its original proponents hoped that it would produce.

I also think that it's important that claims that are made here in relation to integrity in the system are well weighted. Claims about transparency that are made in other but related debates by people who launch, for example, dozens of OPD requests in this place and then complain that they're not fully complied with some weeks later are gaslighting the transparency debate in a way that—in some cases, not all cases—is cynical. In some cases, it is designed to create a little bit of whataboutism and equivalence around transparency and lobbying issues. That is actually not helpful. If you genuinely are concerned about transparency issues, then, for some people in this place, a reflection on what the last nine years was like might actually be instructive in terms of fixing the culture on some of those issues.

A reference to the states and territories isn't necessarily helpful either, because, of course, the jurisdictions that they operate in engage other sets of issues. For example, the planning regimes and their interactions with property developers do mean that there are different steps undertaken, depending on the structure of the legal framework in those states in relation to those issues.

I want to address the last element of Senator Pocock's motion. The lobbying code is an administrative instrument. It's an executive action, an action of executive government. For that reason, in my view and the government's view, it's misconceived to expect that the code require the disclosure of sponsored pass access to Parliament House. The question of access to Parliament House is not a matter for executive government. It is a matter and a prerogative of the parliament. That point is important to understanding what it is that executive government can deal with here. The question of disclosure of access—I heard Senator Pocock's outline of those issues in the debate but I have also heard it in the public discussion of these issues—is a matter for the parliament, not the executive.

It would be a great surprise to me indeed if the Senate adopted the position that's outlined in this general business debate, because that would have the executive reach into matters that are properly the preserve of the parliament and of the Senate. In terms of that issue, I caution colleagues about the broader implications, and I thought it was useful to set out the government's position at this stage of the discussion.

I thank Senator Pocock for bringing this motion and for raising again in this chamber the need for effective rules around lobbyists. Lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes, and to the extent the government said there's a place for lobbyists in a democracy, of course, the government is right. We've had lobbyists from environment groups, human rights groups, faith based organisations and corporate Australia. There's a place for lobbyists in the parliament, but we need to have rules around them, first of all to ensure there isn't just a revolving door between parliament, senior ministerial advisers and lobbyists, and, secondly, so that the public knows who is here doing the lobbying and whom they are doing it on behalf of.

To the extent the minister in their response sought to limit this motion to actions that just the executive should take, that's not how I read Senator Pocock's motion. Senator Pocock's motion is addressed to the Senate. Of course it is the job of elected representatives, through the offices of this parliament, to put in place thorough transparency on who has a lobbyist pass and what they're permitted to do. All of us at different times, I'm sure, have signed passes for different people to get access to parliament. It's part of what senators do and it's part of what members of the House of Representatives do. None of us should be concerned about that matter being on a public register: of course it should be.

The Greens have been pressing for reforms on lobbyists. I particularly commend the work of Senator Larissa Waters in this regard. Senator Waters has been a champion of reforms for integrity in democracy in her time in this parliament. Let's look at some of what the Greens have been pressing for, because I think it very much complements what Senator Pocock has brought in this motion. First of all, we have called for reforms to address the secrecy around lobbyists influencing governments' decisions. That included—and continues to include to this day—strengthening the lobbying code of conduct to include in-house lobbyists. Currently, only lobbyists who are engaged by an external company need to be registered, but often the most powerful are the government relations employees in some of the biggest corporations in Australia. Indeed, I will return to a specific example of that, which is happening literally as this debate is playing out.

We need stronger penalties for breaching the code, including being banned from future meetings within the parliamentary precinct. If a lobbyist breaches the code and it's a serious breach, they should be prohibited from having meetings within the parliamentary precinct. Of course they can come and observe the chamber if they want, but they should have their privileges removed—of course they should. And it all needs to be more transparent.

One of the other fundamental disclosure requirements, closely linked to lobbyists, is to require ministers to publish their diaries. Having come here from a state parliament where the Premier's and every minister's diary is published at three-monthly intervals—and it's just standard, business as usual, in that state parliament and in other state parliaments across the country—I was astounded to see the Prime Minister of this institution resisting providing any details about his ministerial diaries. In fact, he is now fighting an FOI request through the Information Commissioner, and no doubt will fight it through the Federal Court. All that's being asked is to tell us who the Prime Minister met with in the first hundred days of office. What's remarkable is: some other senior ministers have provided those details, but we have a Prime Minister committed to secrecy. What is it about the meetings in the first hundred days that the Prime Minister doesn't want to tell us? Who did he meet with? Surely the people of Australia have a right to know who the Prime Minister meets with—not just in the first hundred days but on a continuing disclosure basis, throughout their time in office. It's the least that can be expected. It is standard behaviour. It's standard disclosure practice in state parliaments around this country. But there's this commitment to the cult of secrecy here. And it's starting, as you can see, in the highest office in the land.

The Greens have also called for an extension of the ban on former ministers becoming lobbyists and meeting with current ministers or shadows, from 18 months to five years. Former minister Christopher Pyne is making a fortune off his connections. And everybody thinks that's okay? He's making an absolute killing from his connections. And we all think that's okay? Is that really what the club thinks is good—that you step from being a minister into senior corporate lobbying positions, using the connections you got as a minister, paid for by the public, in a position of ultimate trust with the public, and then you benefit from it to that extent? Of course there needs to be an extension on those prohibitions on former ministers becoming lobbyists in areas where they were a minister, in areas where they had that special knowledge. And, of course, we need more transparency around departmental secondments to industry, and a far, far tougher code of conduct.

So I want to thank Senator Pocock for bringing the motion and continuing to put this on the agenda. The Greens will support additional transparency measures, no matter where they come from in the chamber. We'd urge the government and the opposition to get on board with that.

I said that there's a matter that's literally unfolding as this debate is unfolding, and that's in the office of the Minister for Home Affairs, where the chief of staff of the Minister for Home Affairs is in the process of moving—I think their last day of work will be tomorrow—from that powerful position as a senior adviser to take on a government relations job with the international arms manufacturer Thales, with no cooling-off period. They're literally walking out of being chief of staff one day and going straight in to being a government relations adviser for a major multinational arms manufacturer the next day. How is that legal in 2023? How is that permissible?

And it's actually worse than that, because Thales is in the process—and going through the Foreign Investment Review Board process—of taking over one of Australia's only remaining sovereign cybersecurity firms, Tesserent. There's been silence from the Australian government as to resisting that foreign takeover by Thales—silence from the home affairs minister about Australia losing its last remaining, serious sovereign capacity on cybersecurity and it being taken over by Thales. We find out at the same time that her chief of staff is stepping out from working as chief of staff for the minister straight into government relations with Thales, who is in the process of doing the Foreign Investment Review Board takeover.

Nothing to see here!

As Senator Pocock interjects: nothing to see here! How could this be legal? How could this be considered legal or ethical practice in 2023?

Yes, the former Morrison government was woeful—dreadful—and we all came in here hoping for better. And yet this is what we get: stepping out of being chief of staff to the Minister for Home Affairs one day and right into being government relations adviser for a major French multinational—which, did I mention, is mired in corruption scandal after corruption scandal around the globe? If anyone is interested, just Google 'Jacob Zuma', 'Thales' and 'corruption', and you can see that ongoing corruption trial.

What was it?

'Jacob Zuma' and 'Thales'—the ongoing corruption trial in South Africa, where they literally corrupted the head of the government to get an arms deal with them. Nothing to see here!

So I commend Senator Pocock for the motion and I join with him and, I think, the vast majority of the crossbench to say to the Albanese government: you came in with all these promises, all these statements about transparency, and you said things would be different. Well, if that's true, I've got a French arms deal to sell you!

I thank Senator Ayres and Senator Shoebridge for their contribution. It is disappointing that there is no contribution from the coalition on what is a very important issue. It is not acceptable that there is so little transparency, that there are 2,000 people about which Australians have no idea who they are or what they're doing in Parliament House. I used the US example earlier just to highlight how far behind we are. You would assume that our lobbying code of conduct is better than the US, but it's not. We have such a long way to go.

We have an incredible democracy, and yet we have major parties who are comfortable with a system that works for them. They're comfortable with a system that produces this revolving door of staffers and politicians picking up the plum jobs in the private sector, working as lobbyists, working as government relations people, and this needs to change. There is an expectation from Australians that we work for them, because we do. The only power we have here in the Senate is through the people in our states and territories who elected us. How can we say to them that they do not deserve to know who we're signing into this building, who we're giving access-all-areas, 24-hour passes to? It's indefensible, and it's no wonder that we just hear silence from the major parties. We have the minister giving a statement but nothing from the coalition. We must do better.

I'm new in this place. I have learnt a great deal over the last year, and the number of people who have access to this building has shocked me. It is a good thing that Australians can make representations, that they can access policy experts, and I believe the sponsored pass system is also a very good thing: you can give people access on your behalf to get into the building, to just swipe, not to have to sign in—but Australians deserve to know who those people are. It's not good enough. We have to do better as a parliament. To simply say that this is something that I'm wrongly saying the executive should do! I'm saying that the parliament should fix this. We should all fix this. We should all care about this. Sure, ministers may have to wait a few years before they pick up that plum lobbying job, but this is in the interests of all of us: This is in the interests of Australians, of our democracy and our future, and we're currently failing Australians when it comes to lobbying. We are failing them.

You can't tell me that you can, hand on heart, look at Australians and say that there is enough transparency when you have 2,000 people accessing this building and nobody knows who they are. One parliamentarian has 55 people signed in under their name—swipe and go. Come up to security. Swipe your name. You're in. No-one knows who you are. You could be lobbying for any company. Just pointing to a third party lobbyist register is not good enough. We can do better. I would urge my fellow senators and those in the other place to think about this. I know that there are people in the major parties, good people, who are concerned about this. Don't stand by because it works for your ministers to be able to pick up a plum job at the end of the day and it works for your staff to go in and out of the private sector and lobbying firms whenever there's a change of government.

We've got to get serious about this. Our democracy is at stake if we keep taking it for granted. There are companies and industries that have figured the system out. They are working the system. They are wielding their power, and it's on all of us to ensure that this system is as transparent as possible so that we can have trust in government decisions; so that we know that, when the government make decisions, those decisions are being made with good advice; and so that we know who is accessing the government and making representations. You simply can't tell me that $1.5 billion to something like Middle Arm comes about without intense lobbying and access from vested interests. Australians are waking up to this. They're saying, 'We want better.' I would urge and invite fellow senators to join me in changing this system and saying that we can do better and we will do better.

I will put the question, noting that it is now past 4.30 and no division can occur. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to. A division is required. That will be noted and attended to when the parliament next meets.

I seek leave to take note of a ministerial statement.

We have a couple of minutes remaining before we move to adjournment. Is leave granted?

I don't believe that we've been provided with any information about the intention to do so, so no.

Please take your seat for a moment, Senator McKenzie. Leave was denied, and we will move now to adjournment.

We are now at adjournment. It's 5.30, Senator McKenzie.

This week I met with representatives from communities that continue to be devastatingly impacted by the Mariana dam disaster that occurred on 5 November 2015. They made the long journey from Brazil to speak with parliamentarians in this place about their fight in the High Court in London with BHP and Vale. The Mariana dam disaster was the biggest of its kind in Brazil. The bursting of the tailings dam released 40 million cubic metres of toxic mining waste, including arsenic and mercury, killing 19 people and affecting as many as 700,000 people, many of them indigenous Brazilians. It was one of the biggest environmental, economic and social disasters in Brazilian history.

The legacy of the devastation is long lasting. Their extensive legal battle to seek compensation from BHP for damage to their homes and livelihoods is, unfortunately, all too familiar. Rather than be accountable for the disaster, BHP has continued to play legal games. It's reminiscent of Rio Tinto's initial response to the Juukan Gorge debacle. The Brazilian first nations delegation I met this week have persistently stood up to BHP's intimidating wealth and influence.

The issues these representatives raised with me are deeply concerning. The Krenak and Borunpeople constitute the last Botocudos of the east of Brazil. This indigenous population has a spiritual connection with the Doce River, which translates to English as 'sweet river'. Their entire way of life has been affected by the pollution of this important river. The Krenak can no longer fish or bathe in the river. I want to share the voices of representatives from the Krenak indigenous community about their persistent fight for compensation from the mining companies following the 2015 disaster. The delegation told me:

This time we fight for our river. The River Doce was destroyed beyond recognition after the dam collapsed and to us, it is like a mother, or a father. The devastation of our river feels as if a member of our family has been killed. It is now a dead river.

We have a saying in Brazil, 'if you are not seen you are forgotten'. We are here to keep reminding BHP, the Brazilian government, and the world to remember us. We will keep fighting until we get justice, and we will keep reminding people who we are and why we matter.

We wish we could be remembered for our traditions and our cultures, but our tribe are always fighting for the rights to our lands, the rights to respect and now the right to justice. We know we won't get justice in Brazil, this is why we have come to England to fight for justice.

BHP need to be held accountable for their operations, whether in Australia, the United Kingdom or Brazil. It's not good enough that big multinationals continue to sidestep their responsibilities for human rights and cleaning up environmental damage from their activities. The Australian Council of Trade Unions are supporting the Krenak at a protest at BHP's office in Melbourne tomorrow. I stand in solidarity with them too.

Rather than fairly compensate the hundreds and thousands of Brazilians who have been smashed by BHP's environmental catastrophe, BHP are spending millions running a lobbying campaign in Australia—a lobbying campaign to keep their labour hire loophole open. While BHP are dumping toxic sludge on first nations communities in Brazil, they are ripping off their workers in Australia with their labour hire loophole. BHP used to be known as the big Australian, just as Qantas used to be known as the spirit of Australia. Both BHP and Qantas need to stop trading off the Australian reputation while behaving in a completely un-Australian way, as we've seen in their campaign to keep the Joyce loopholes. Do the right thing. Stop the nonsense campaign and its propaganda, pay your workers fairly and fairly compensate the communities you have destroyed in Brazil.

I'm intending to contact the Brazilian embassy in Canberra and convey my disappointment about how BHP has treated their citizens. It's important we support the Krenak community and raise these concerns.

The 16th of September marks the one-year anniversary of Jina Mahsa Amini's tragic death at the hands of the brutal Islamic regime in Iran. In this parliament we commemorate the death of Jina with a heavy heart. The Iranian government's violent oppression of its people continues to this day. The Greens—and, I know, many other members of this chamber—continue to call on the Australian government to take greater action under the Magnitsky act to put targeted sanctions on senior leaders in the Iranian government and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It should not be that hard to speak on behalf of the Australian people in that regard.

This day also marks the beginning of the Woman Life Freedom movement, which has captivated and inspired so many people around the world who stand in solidarity with Iranians bravely fighting for their human rights and a brighter future in the face of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet. On Saturday, the Greens will be standing in solidarity with the Iranian people and the Iranian diaspora in Australia and around the world as we remember Jina Mahsa Amini. We will remember her tragic death and share our continued support for the Woman Life Freedom movement.

The Greens have for a long time raised the concerns of the Bangladeshi diaspora about the ongoing human rights violations in Bangladesh and their potential impact on the upcoming national election. Crimes such as extrajudicial killings, abduction and torture have been documented by Amnesty International and the US Department of State. It's imperative that the Australian government also raise these concerns and take action, under the Magnitsky act, to bring targeted sanctions against the perpetrators of these crimes, not least the leadership of the Rapid Action Battalion. Action must be taken to ensure the prevention of what was witnessed in the 2014 and 2018 elections, which were fraught with controversies and irregularities, including intimidation and violence against opposition political parties, civil society and the media.

The Greens urge the Albanese government, as a government committed to promoting the rule of law and human rights through diplomacy, to develop a constructive relationship with their counterparts in Bangladesh before the election occurs, and to make clear Australia's demands that the election be free, fair and inclusive.

President, I'm going to say something that I can't say outside this place. Ray Hadley was right about Toplace and Jean Nassif, and if our defamation laws weren't so broken we could have saved many people from buying shoddily constructed and downright dangerous properties from this developer—all across Sydney.

What we know is that for years Nassif and Toplace have readily issued defamation threats to many who were willing to criticise what they knew to be the shortcomings in what was being built by Toplace. The only place I felt safe in raising those concerns in my time as a state MP was on the floor of the chamber in the parliament. Many knew there were issues with what Toplace was building and with the solvency of the company, and there were serious irregularities in the family's involvement in many aspects of the business. If they could have said these things publicly, without threat of defamation, things might be very different today for so many families struggling with a huge mortgage and a shoddy Toplace property.

Ray Hadley and 2GB have been in court since July 2020 about comments Ray Hadley made—comments that were true—in broadcasts in 2019 and 2020, which Mr Nassif said implied he was a dishonest and shoddy developer. Well, it turns out he was.

It's worth noting that Toplace were ordered by the NSW Building Commissioner to remedy a range of defects in their Skyview apartment complex in Castle Hill only after concerns were raised in the New South Wales parliament by me and others. Fair Trading required Toplace to fix non-compliant cladding on their Atmosphere apartments, and council inspectors found safety and fire issues. Multiple other Toplace developments have owners suing for alleged defects. It's also worth noting that in June a warrant was issued for Nassif's arrest over an alleged large-scale fraud, for which his daughter Ashlyn has been charged, and Toplace has now been placed into administration.

In another instance, there were three councillors who have now been confirmed by ICAC to have engaged in serious corrupt conduct. Again, I only felt safe raising that on the floor of the New South Wales parliament, because defamation laws were repeatedly used to obstruct and delay the final exposure of their dealings.

The New South Wales ICAC has recommended criminal charges be considered against those councillors, but in 2019 they sued the SMH for defamation. (Time expired)

The Invictus Games 2023 kicked off in Dusseldorf in Germany on 9 September and runs for one week. The Australian team is made up of 31 current and former ADF personnel who have, sadly, have been wounded, injured or become ill during service. The Invictus Games is an international, adaptive, multisport competition of individuals and team sports. These include athletics, indoor rowing, powerlifting, road cycling, sitting volleyball, table tennis, swimming, wheelchair basketball and wheelchair rugby. It's a great event that demonstrates the power of sport to provide a sense of community and purpose, and a great celebration of the resilience of our veterans. Importantly, the message of the power of sport to assist in recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration applies at all levels, from the local club all the way to the Invictus Games.

The word 'invictus' means unconquered, and this is a very fitting description for our veterans. It embodies the fighting spirit of wounded, injured and ill personnel. Importantly, the Invictus Games highlight that injuries do not define our veterans and demonstrate what they're able to achieve post injury, and I have met quite a number of these remarkable individuals. The Invictus Games was launched in March 2014 by Prince Harry after he was inspired by a similar concept in the United States, the Warrior Games. Since then, the games have grown to include 21 nations, 10 sports, over 1,500 volunteers and 550 competitors.

I had the pleasure of learning much more about the Invictus Games when engaging with veterans through the Senate's Adaptive sport programs for Australian Defence Force veterans inquiry earlier this year. It was really an experience that I will remember for a very long time. All those who participated in the inquiry were unanimous in their belief that adaptive sports, the sports that our veterans compete in at the Invictus Games, are beneficial in aiding many of them in their transition out of military life into civilian life. Benefits we heard about included lowering of stress and anxiety; easing of socialisation; and boosting self-confidence and self-esteem. Sport offers a kind of common language that allows veterans to reconnect with their local community and mitigate feelings of loneliness and lost identity. I again thank all of those who took part in that inquiry, particularly those who took the time to make a submission or to attend one of our public hearings. It certainly made it very clear to me and many other senators, as we heard in this place when the report was tabled, how important the Invictus Games are and how important sport is more generally to the veteran community.

The Invictus Games are a great example of the healing power of sport, and it also brings together the families and friends of our veterans. Almost 90 family members and friends have made the journey to Germany to support the 31 members of Team Australia. So I want to pay tribute to those supporting our veterans—and not just at the Invictus Games but in everyday life. Family and friends are so often essential to the transition from service to civilian life, and even more so when recovering from an injury or illness.

Invictus Games competitors are fantastic role models, not just to other veterans but to all other people. They demonstrate that, regardless of disability or illness, we can all participate and succeed in sport and, by extension, be active in our communities. Through their participation in the Invictus Games our veterans are demonstrating once again how sport can lift people up, support their recovery and help them overcome challenges.

I encourage everyone to get behind our Aussies as they complete in the final days of this competition. Team Australia has already secured several medals with success across many sports, including swimming, weightlifting and wheelchair rugby. But it's important to remember that all our Invictus Games competitors have already made their country very proud through their service. I again want to thank them for their service and wish them all the very best for the remaining days of the competition.

Senate adjourned at 17 : 4 5