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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 and government engagement with basin communities.

Leave not granted.

I therefore move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate or to provide for the consideration of any matter.

I move this motion because we know that the government is preparing for yet another guillotine, yet another closure of debate in this place, because it doesn't like scrutiny, it doesn't like transparency, it doesn't like accountability and it won't listen to people. It's a government that doesn't listen; in fact, it chooses not to listen. This bill, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is a classic example of the government choosing not to listen. It actively chose not to listen. This bill was, like so many other bills, referred to a Senate inquiry. What would you think you would do with a Senate inquiry into a bill directly affecting water policy and the Murray-Darling Basin? I think—

You'd go and check it out.

You'd go to those communities—that's right. That's what I think you would do. You would go and listen and talk to the communities impacted by the bill. What did the Labor senators and the Albanese government choose to do with their numbers on the legislation committee? They chose not to go to any of the basin communities. They chose to conduct a committee inquiry that was solely held in Canberra. Did it go to any of the northern basin communities in Queensland? No, it didn't. Did it go to any of the various basin communities in northern New South Wales? No, it didn't. Did it go to any of the communities through the Murray and Darling systems in southern New South Wales? No, it didn't. Nor did it go to Victoria, nor did it go through the river and irrigation communities in South Australia. The Labor Party just didn't want to listen. It actively chose not to listen.

Knowing that a guillotine is coming on this bill and that the government doesn't want to listen to questions or scrutiny in the Senate, or any of those factors anymore, we present this motion to at least call upon Minister Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for the Environment and Water, to do her job of going out and listening—to do what the government has failed to do today and to comprehensively visit those basin communities who are impacted by this legislation, because their concerns are real ones. I know Senator Wong, when she held this portfolio, visited those communities. I visited those communities. Senator Ruston visited those communities. And, as I said in the debate on this legislation, the important thing when you're visiting those communities is to say the same thing wherever you are. I have stood in those communities and told them why it's important for freshwater flows to go into the lower lakes, just as I have stood in Adelaide and told them why rice and cotton have a place in Australia's irrigation industry—to actually tell the truth and be upfront and honest with all of those communities. That's precisely what Tanya Plibersek should be doing. As Minister for the Environment and Water, she should be getting out and visiting each of those communities and making it crystal clear as to why it is the government has taken action that has broken the consensus across states and territories in support of the Basin Plan.

The Victorian government doesn't support this legislation, doesn't support the action the government is taking. So we have a situation now where the Basin Plan and water reform is in peril as a result of the fact that this government doesn't listen, and it doesn't even listen to the Victorian Labor government in terms of their concerns and their approaches. This government doesn't listen in a way that tries to maintain consensus and support there. It hasn't listened to the communities and hasn't listened to a state Labor government. It's broken the consensus of political support across basin communities and across basin states and, indeed, across this parliament in relation to these reforms.

The concerns are real ones. These communities see this government acting to tear up what Tony Burke put in place, which was the no socioeconomic disadvantage test. It was a Labor government that put that test in place. It was a Labor minister, who is once again a Labor minister and a member of the cabinet today, who put in place a test recognised as important to these communities.

There is much, as I said in this debate, we should be proud of that's been achieved in water reform. Billions and billions of litres of water have been recovered and are actively managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder for the benefit of the Murray-Darling Basin system. But this is bad policy. This is a bad approach, and this is a government that is pursuing this because it won't listen. This motion calls upon the minister to listen, to engage, to do the job that she should.

The bill that we are seeking to resolve, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, delivers on Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard's plan on the Murray-Darling Basin, an approach that was supported by the Liberal Party but that has always been opposed by Mr Joyce and the National Party.

What we see from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate today is a pathetic attempt to hide in consultation on a plan that he knows has been in place for nearly a decade that was sabotaged by Mr Barnaby Joyce. That's what it was. So what I'd say to Senator Birmingham and Senator Ruston and all of the South Australian Liberals is you should hang your heads in shame for the way in which you have been so weak as to allow a plan that you once supported to be sabotaged by members of the National Party, who have no interest in ensuring that the plan that you had in government is delivered.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left!

I will not be lectured by you on this!

Senator Ruston, we have just had your leader on his feet. There were no interjections. We now have the Leader of the Government in the Senate on her feet, and there will be no interjections. Minister Wong, please continue.

Two out of 450 gigalitres is what you delivered, and you come in here and pretend that you still support this plan. You allowed it for a decade—

You forget about the 2,750, don't you!

and I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who I listened to in silence. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is such a weak leader for South Australia. You should go back to South Australia and go to Adelaide and tell them, 'I allowed the National Party yet again to try and blow up the plan.' Because that's what you did for nine years. I move:

That the question be now put.

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

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

():  I move:

That—

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 be put immediately; and

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion to put the question, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the remaining stages of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 be agreed to, and the bill be now passed.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

by leave—I move:

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

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023.

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during the sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE     . IN THE 2023 SPRING SITTINGS

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT (CITIZENSHIP REPUDIATION) BILL 2023

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to establish a revised citizenship cessation regime. This Bill is necessary following the decision of the High Court in Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19 (Alexander) in which the High Court found section 36B of the Citizenship Act to be invalid, and subsequently Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 33, in which section 36D was also found to be invalid. The revised citizenship cessation regime will ensure that dual Australian citizens who are convicted for certain offences, including terrorism, treason, sabotage, espionage, foreign interference, or certain explosives and lethal devices offences, and are found to have repudiated their allegiance to Australia, may have their Australian citizenship ceased in certain circumstances.

The amendments in the Bill would confer a power on a court, on application by the Minister for Home Affairs, to make an order ceasing the Australian citizenship of a person who is also a national or citizen of another country, where the person is convicted in an Australian jurisdiction of one or more specified offences, as an order concurrent with (but not after) sentencing for the offence or offences.

The Bill will amend the Citizenship Act and other relevant Acts to establish a revised citizenship cessation regime that appropriately addresses the implications of the decisions of the High Court in Alexander and Benbrika. The Bill will establish a court-based model for cessation of a dual citizen's Australian citizenship, in certain circumstances, where that person engages in specified conduct or is convicted of a specified offence that would amount to a fundamental repudiation of their allegiance to Australia and their responsibilities as an Australian citizen.

Reasons for Urgency

The Bill requires urgent passage in the 2023 Spring sittings following the High Court's decision in Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 33.

The introduction of a revised regime, conferring a power on the courts to make a citizenship cessation order on conviction for certain specified offences, will ensure the Australian Government is appropriately placed to deal with conduct by dual Australian citizens that represents a fundamental repudiation of their responsibilities as a citizen to the State. The revised model will promote the value of Australian citizenship and the ongoing commitment to Australia and its shared values, while also contributing to the protection of the Australian community.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

The idea that an individual, through their own conduct, can sever their connection to the Australian body politic has been enshrined in the Australia's citizenship laws for over 70 years, since the commencement of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Since then, the Australian Citizenship Act has provided for Australian citizenship to be ceased as a consequence of particular conduct considered to be so egregious that it is a fundamental repudiation of a citizen's responsibilities to the State.

In 2015, terrorism was specified as a basis for citizenship cessation for the first time through the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015. The Citizenship Act was subsequently amended through the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Act 2020, moving from the 'operation of law' model established in 2015, to establish a new framework with discretionary powers of the Minister to cease a dual citizen's Australian citizenship for engaging in specified terrorism-related conduct or on being convicted and sentenced for terrorism and other specified serious offences.

In June 2022, the High Court ruled invalid part of the terrorism-related citizenship cessation regime. The Court ruled in Alexander that s 36B of the Citizenship Act was not valid as it 'reposed in the Minister the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt'.

In November this year, the High Court examined the provisions in s 36D in the case of Benbrika. The Court ruled that s 36D was also invalid.

The High Court's decisions in these cases provide an opportunity to refine the citizenship cessation regime. In a contemporary setting, it is appropriate that consideration be given to the types of serious criminal offences which amount to repudiation of allegiance to Australia.

As such, today the Government introduces the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. The Billwould repeal the invalid provisions and establish a citizenship cessation regime that appropriately addresses the outcomes of the High Court's decisions in Alexander and Benbrika.

The Bill provides an appropriate mechanism to deal with dual Australian citizens who have committed crimes that are so serious and significant that they demonstrates the repudiation of their allegiance to Australia. The Bill promotes the value and integrity of Australian citizenship and the ongoing commitment to Australia and its shared values, while also contributing to the protection of the Australian community.

Under the Bill, the power to make a citizenship cessation order is vested in the courts and is an appropriate exercise of judicial, rather than Executive power.

Having regard to the High Court's decisions in Alexander and Benbrika, the Bill provides that where a person has been convicted of a specified offence or offences and the court has decided to sentence the person to a term or terms of imprisonment for those serious offences totalling at least 3 years, the court may order as part of the sentence that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen. The offences include:

To make a citizenship cessation order, the court must be satisfied the person is aged 14 years or older and is an Australian citizen, and that the conduct to which the conviction or convictions relate is so serious and significant that it demonstrates that they have repudiated their allegiance to Australia. The Bill outlines a range of factors that the court must have regard to in deciding whether to make the order. While the court must have regard to these factors, they are not mandated prerequisites to the making of a citizenship cessation order, and not all factors need to be present in each circumstance for an order to be made by the court.

Cessation of an individual's Australian citizenship is a serious step reserved for a narrow cohort of individuals. As such, the Bill includes appropriate safeguards.

The court can only make a citizenship cessation order if the Minister for Home Affairs makes an application for the order. The application may be made before or after the person is convicted of one or more serious offences but must be made before the person is sentenced.

The Minister must give the person written notice of the application as soon as practicable after the application is made.

The court must not make the order if the court is satisfied that the person would, if the order is made, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country.

The Bill also includes provisions ensuring that the citizenship status of a person is clear where a decision of a court has overturned or quashed the order.

The Government understands the complexities of this significant legislation and is committed to a robust and workable regime. Laws that fail in the courts do not make the country safer or Australian values more protected. In that vein, the Bill also includes provisions for both independent and parliamentary committee review of the provisions within an appropriate time.

Citizenship is available to those who make Australia their home and who are prepared to commit to our nation and to our common future.

Citizenship represents a full and formal membership of the Australian community. It involves reciprocal rights and obligations. It is something to be treasured and not taken lightly.

This is why the Government is committed to a citizenship cessation regime—to uphold the integrity of Australian citizenship and to provide an appropriate response to criminal conduct which constitutes repudiation of a person's allegiance to our great nation.

I commend this bill to the Chamber.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

PATERSON () (): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the coalition in relation to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. This is an important bill. This is a necessary bill. It is a bill which, in principle, the coalition of course supports because it seeks to maintain a power that the coalition first introduced in office which enables the citizenship of a convicted terrorist to be removed.

However, we want to make sure we get this bill right and we want to make sure this bill achieves its objectives. We are willing to work with the government in a cooperative way to ensure that's the case, and to ensure the timely passage of this bill.

To that end, after being briefed on this bill earlier this week by the government, the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, has written to the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, setting out what we see as a series of necessary amendments to improve and strengthen this bill. If the government is able to agree to these amendments, which we have also circulated in the chamber and which should now be available to senators, that would make it very easy for us to support the swift passage of the bill. If necessary—if the government is not able to move them—Senator Cash will move those amendments for the opposition later when we get to the committee stage of this debate. She will set out in more detail the purpose of those amendments and will speak to those.

In brief there are two main concerns that we have. One of them we do not seek to deal with by means of amendments today because it is not straightforward and needs to be considered. Without delaying passage of this bill, we are asking the government, after the bill is agreed to by the parliament, nonetheless to send it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security so it can review this particular issue. The issue is that the bill as drafted and as proposed by the government does not adequately deal with the historical terrorism caseload that we have in this country, including our most notorious ever convicted terrorist, Abdul Benbrika. As drafted and if passed in this form, this bill would not allow the citizenship of a previously convicted terrorist offender who is in jail—and, in Benbrika's case, due to be released shortly—to have citizenship stripped from him, and that is because the bill has no retrospective elements. So someone like Benbrika—who was, rightly, convicted of, and jailed for, his crime and had his citizenship withdrawn but who was successful in the High Court in repudiating that withdrawal on the basis that it was done by a minister and not by a court—will be allowed, after his release from prison, to continue to be an Australian citizen unless he commits a fresh and new terrorism offence.

We want to make sure that all legal options have been exhausted to test whether or not, in fact, those who have been convicted of historical terrorism offences can have their citizenship withdrawn in a proper, lawful and constitutional manner. We think an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is the appropriate and necessary way to investigate the issue. Of course, when these bills were first introduced in 2015 and amended in 2018, they were subject to extensive consideration and inquiry by the PJCIS, and we think there is nothing to prevent the PJCIS from again doing so, particularly because we are only proposing that the PJCIS do so after the bill passes. We do not intend that an inquiry delay or impede the passage of the bill but only consider the bill after it has passed and whether any amendments could be secured to the bill after it's legislated to make sure these historical terrorist offenders like Benbrika are captured.

I will give a little bit of the history of this bill and explain why we are dealing it with today. On 8 June 2022, a majority of the High Court of Australia invalidated the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to determine that a dual national who is engaged in terrorism related conduct is no longer an Australian citizen. As soon as that decision was handed down almost 18 months ago, it was clear that legislative reform was necessary. In fact, the government, through the Minister for Home Affairs, Ms O'Neil, in response to the decision in what is known as the Alexander case, initially promised to first legislate to fix this issue more than 12 months ago. On 24 October, Paul Karp in the Guardian reported the government's intention to introduce new legislation to restore these powers before Christmas last year. We are now dealing with this following a second case in the case of Mr Benbrika, who has also been successful, as Mr Alexander was, in having an element of this bill declared unconstitutional and therefore having his citizenship restored.

So, while it has taken the government 18 months since the first High Court decision to bring on this bill, apparently it is now an urgent priority that the parliament must consider this week. As I've said, we don't intend to stand in the way of the passage of this bill. It's an important principle which we support. But we do not understand why this week it has become urgent and why it couldn't have been dealt with a year ago, as the minister first said it would be, or why it couldn't have been dealt with a month ago when the Benbrika decision was handed down by the High Court. As I said, we are concerned that it only deals with future terrorism cases and does not deal with historical cases like that of Benbrika. This is a man who plotted devastating attacks on Australians, including one targeting the AFL Grand Final at the MCG, and we do not think it is appropriate to fail to address that very serious case.

The other thing our amendments seek to do is broaden the range of offences that could be an appropriate trigger for someone's citizenship to be cancelled. Senator Cash will move those amendments—and I see that they have now been circulated in the chamber. They expand the list of serious offences to include a range of other offences to be captured by this bill, including, for example: advocating terrorism and genocide; advocating violence against Australia's national interest; child sex offences; and other serious crimes. In the same way in which the government recognised that committing an act of terrorism, or planning to do so, violates the principle of citizenship, and in the same way that the government has, rightly, recognised—and, proposes to add to this bill—espionage and foreign interference as a betrayal of Australian citizenship, we think that these other serious crimes constitute that as well.

We are concerned that it doesn't capture slavery; torture; use of a carriage service for child abuse material; use of a carriage service involving sexual activity or causing harm to a person under 16; urging violence; advocating terrorism; threats to security, including training with a foreign military; offences related to monitoring devices in the Criminal Code; harming Australians, including the murder of Australians overseas; and many other matters. We think the bill should be amended to capture those so that the government has the widest possible opportunity to cancel the citizenship of one of these people. For example: if, upon being released into the community, Mr Benbrika commits new offences that are not of a terrorist nature, then under the bill, as currently drafted, there would be no opportunity for the government to apply to the court to have his citizenship removed. We want to give the government the maximum opportunity to take away the citizenship of a person like that.

Currently, as drafted, the bill says that if you're an Australian citizen but also hold another citizenship, and you go overseas and murder another Australian citizen, that is not sufficient ground to cancel your citizenship. If you're a person who engages in torture or who goes overseas to rape children, that is not enough to allow the minister to apply to a court and say, 'We don't think this person should be an Australian citizen; their citizenship should be cancelled, where they have another citizenship available to them.' Under this bill, if you're a person who goes to train with a foreign military, or who engages in arms-trafficking across borders or who urges violence against Australians—some of the clearest possible repudiations of your allegiance to Australia—you will be able to keep your Australian citizenship. This could be remedied by the amendments that we will move today. It need not be remedied by our amendments if the government agrees to our amendments, and I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are in discussions today about whether that can be facilitated.

We're keen to make sure that we can leave the parliament this week with the strongest possible citizenship-stripping bill passed and with no gaps in the bill. Unfortunately, we have learned in the last couple of weeks that when it comes to urgent national security bills introduced by this government some gaps have arisen. Gaps arose in the original migration amendment bill to impose binding conditions on those people released by the High Court into the community on bridging visas. We learned that, initially, the visa conditions were not binding at all; the only punishment for violating those visa conditions was to be detained pending deportation, and it wasn't lawful to do that in the view of the High Court. Then we learned that the government was introducing some conditions, but many omissions and weaknesses were identified in that bill, including no restrictions on whether someone should go near a school or a childcare centre if they were a convicted child sex offender, and no restrictions on contacting the family of a victim if they were a murderer. We proposed six amendments to that bill and the government subsequently agreed to them, even after they told the media and the parliament that their original bill was as strong as possible.

Again, this week the parliament is considering an urgent patch-up job to that legislation, because even that legislation had omissions and flaws in it. That includes the fact that the government forgot, while including these as breaches of visa condition, to also make it a criminal offence to engage in these behaviours, therefore tying the hands of the Australian Federal Police in enforcing these and making sure that people who breach their visa conditions can actually be locked away. Our experience with this government, when it comes to urgent national security legislation, is that if they're not scrutinised and amendments aren't proposed then the best possible bill cannot pass this place. It falls to the opposition to help them to do that.

As I said in my opening remarks, we intend to facilitate the passage of this bill this week—but only if the government agrees to strengthen the bill. We do not want to see a weak or inadequate bill pass the parliament. We want to see these issues which we have identified and written to the Prime Minister about addressed by way of amendments. We're hopeful that Prime Minister can be sensible and pragmatic, and recognise that this bill could be improved. We would welcome his support to do that.

As I've also said, we must carefully examine the question of whether the historical terrorism caseload in this country, including that of Abdul Benbrika, can be captured by this law. We appreciate that there are some complexities involved in doing that, and that's why we are not proposing that amendments seek to deal with that issue today. What we are proposing is that after the bill is passed it then be sent to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review to examine that question. We do not think it is acceptable that somebody like Benbrika, who plotted to blow up the MCG on Grand Final Day, should be allowed to be freed in the community with his Australian citizenship restored and no restrictions placed upon him. We must have the opportunity to apply to a court to grant the government's request for his citizenship to be removed. I don't think any Australian would think that Mr Benbrika, who is a dual citizen of Algeria and Australia, has upheld the obligations he entered into, when he obtained his Australian citizenship, to abide by our laws and support our values. He has very clearly defied those, and if no legal sanction can be applied to him by way of removing his citizenship then this is a deficient law and it must be fixed.

We are proposing to work in a constructive and bipartisan way with the government to achieve that. We are not willing to allow a rushed bill to be passed that doesn't deal with these very serious inadequacies that we have identified. My colleague Senator Cash will outline in more detail the amendments that she is prepared to move if the government is not prepared to agree to them.

The Greens will not be supporting this legislation. The bill before us today, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, amends the Australian Citizenship Act to introduce a new mechanism for the cessation of a dual-national's Australian citizenship. It repeals the previous mechanisms which were held to be invalid by the High Court. It also makes consequential amendments to related legislation.

In the cases of both Alexander and Benbrika, the High Court found two things: first, that the loss of one's citizenship is at least as serious as detention; and, second, that the discretionary powers for ministers to strip migrants of their citizenship were designed to punish persons for their crimes. Under the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution, the imposition of punishment for criminal behaviour is a responsibility of the judiciary. I note that is a ruling in a very similar space to the other ruling of the High Court which has consumed a lot of the parliament's attention over the last few weeks. I also note that in a healthy democracy that kind of separation of powers, where the power to impose punishments for criminal behaviour rests with an independent judiciary, is a keystone of the concept of the separation of powers.

In the cases of Alexander and Benbrika, the High Court essentially found that the minister had acted unconstitutionally by punishing the two relevant people on the basis of past criminal behaviour. The government is now coming in to legislate, in effect, to remove the power of the minister to strip citizenship from a dual national and provide that power, under certain circumstances, to the courts. It is worth noting here, though, that this bill also proposes to extend its citizenship-stripping provisions to minors—people as young as 14 years old—and also to provide further punishment in addition to a criminal sentence. What neither the government nor opposition have done is make a case for these powers or at least for what these powers would achieve by way of community protection. They have failed to clarify the amorphous content of 'allegiance to Australia'. They are not proposing to require judges to consider factors broader than a person's offending—for example, the length of time they've been in Australia, whether their family is here in Australia, and whether they have other connections to the community such as jobs, membership of community groups, business connections and so forth.

On the notion of anyone, be they a minister or a court, having the power to strip someone of their citizenship, the Greens want to make this point very clearly. What this does—and we've seen other legislation before this parliament in the last few weeks that we have made the same criticism of—is create two different classes of people within our country who are treated differently under the law. In the case of this bill, if you are a sole Australian national, you will not be caught by the provisions of this bill, and rightly so. You shouldn't be able to render someone stateless by stripping their citizenship if they are just an Australian citizen—a sole citizen of Australia.

But the other group of people that this bill creates is the class of people that are dual nationals in this country. If you're a dual national, you'll be treated differently under the law to someone who is just an Australian citizen. If you're a dual national and this bill does pass and become enduring law in Australia, which I suspect it will, and depending on what the High Court has to say about it, and I expect the court will be asked to think about this in due course—pending those two matters—it will create two different classes of people that are treated differently under the law. Again, it will do that because of the confected political panic caused by the opposition, magnified by the Murdoch press and acquiesced to by the Australian Labor Party.

There is a pattern here. When you are engaged in a race to the bottom on human rights, refugee policy and immigration detention policy, we all know how that plays out. We've seen it repeatedly in this country. It plays out in refugee rights and human rights being trampled. You end up with people being exiled to places like Manus Island and Nauru and being deliberately dehumanised in detention prisons that are run with the explicit intent to make people's lives so bad and so difficult that they actually choose to go back to the persecutions they were fleeing from in their home country to start with. That's where you end up. Or you end up with a system of indefinite immigration detention in Australia, where people are just warehoused with no end date and kept indefinitely in appalling conditions. That's where we end up, folks, when we take strides down this path. And here we are again, taking strides down this path. We already did that in the last sitting week with Labor's anti-refugee legislation. We're going to do it again next week, as has been flagged, when Labor's bill to create a preventive detention regime for a very small group of people in this country comes before this parliament.

We are engaged in a race to the bottom on human rights. One of the reasons we are engaged in a race to the bottom on human rights is that, alone of all the so-called liberal democracies in the world—alone all of those countries—Australia does not have a charter or a bill of rights. We don't have legislated protection of our rights in this country, and we don't have constitutionally embedded protection of our rights in this country. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have one or the other of those things. That means that our rights get eroded away from under us because politics wins the day. The base politics of fear and division win the day. They win the day through that pattern that I spoke about before. This time it's Mr Dutton who is going out, confecting an emergency in the community and creating fear amongst Australians. The Murdoch press act as an amplifier and a megaphone for him, and the Labor Party cravenly capitulates. We saw it on the Tampa. We saw it on offshore detention. We have seen it time after time. We're going to see it on this bill, and we're going to see it on preventive detention next week.

I might add that preventive detention—let's be very clear about what it is—is a future crimes scenario. The government is going to create a system where you can be detained—as in, have your liberty removed from you or severely curtailed—because of something you might do in the future.

If you'd proposed this 20 years ago, if you'd told someone 20 years ago that this is where we'd be now, you'd have been laughed out of the building. The legislators of that day would quite rightly have said that's just anathema in a liberal democracy—that you can be imprisoned and have your liberty removed, one of the most fundamental human rights there is, because of something you might do in future. But here we find ourselves.

The other thing that this legislation does, of course, is it provides a framework to export our problems to the rest of the world. Ultimately, this will make the world a more dangerous place. The risk here is that we will cancel the citizenship of a dual national who will then go back to the other country for which they hold citizenship and become more radicalised in that country than they would have if they had stayed here in Australia. So this is Australia seeking to export its troubles to the rest of the world and, in doing so, risking making the world a less safe place.

I make the point here that it's not only Australians in Australia that this government and parliament have a responsibility for; we have a responsibility for Australians' safety wherever they are in the world. And what you are doing here is risking making the world a less safe place, which could impact on the safety of Australians who are not inside Australia. Again, these logical arguments, I am confident, will fail to carry the day because parliament is again legislating in a panic and legislating in a reactionary way.

It is also worth making the point that last year Australia's terrorism threat level was lowered from 'probable' to 'possible'. So all this is being done in the context of, according to the official advice from the professionals we trust and empower to keep us safe, the terrorism threat level in Australia reducing. In fact, at the time the threat level was lowered, the head of ASIO, Mr Burgess, said:

Their conclusion is relatively straightforward: while Australia remains a potential terrorist target, there are fewer violent extremists with the intention to conduct an attack onshore.

So the terrorism threat level is lowering, and the government response is increasing because they don't want to get wedged by Mr Dutton as they have been wedged on immigration detention policy and refugee policy over the last few weeks.

We won't be supporting this bill, because we don't believe these powers should be available to any public institution in this country, whether it be the minister or the courts, and also because this bill is being rammed through—at least, the government is attempting to ram it through—with indecent haste.

I can't let the opportunity slip by without responding to Senator Paterson's comments on the need for proper scrutiny of legislation like this. I'll just refer Senator Paterson back to the previous sitting week, and I'll also cast forward and refer him to next week, where I have no doubt the Liberal Party will collude to jam through a preventive detention regime without any kind of decent scrutiny availability at all.

Support our amendments to send it to a committee, Nick.

I presume Senator Paterson will be okay with me taking that interjection. I do note that there is an amendment from Senator Paterson to refer this bill to a committee, albeit after the bill has passed. If there was a genuine desire to subject this bill to adequate scrutiny, they would refer the bill to a committee before it passes. I also pause to note that Senator Paterson is proposing to refer it to a committee that is a closed shop and doesn't have a representative of the Australian Greens or, indeed, the entire crossbench of both houses of this parliament. I know Senator Paterson has heard my arguments on this matter, probably on more than one occasion in the past, as has Senator Cash, so I won't reprise all of those arguments today but will simply say that I genuinely believe that that committee would benefit from input from the crossbench and from having a member of the crossbench. We will listen to the discussion that will transpire on that, so I won't declare a position on it during this speech. It's under active consideration, Senator Paterson; that's the most I can give you on that at the moment.

In conclusion, what this country needs is a charter of rights, and it would be preferable to have it embedded into the Constitution. We all know the difficulty of making constitutional change without multiparty political support in this country, and I have no doubt that that multiparty support would not be forthcoming for a constitutionally embedded charter of rights. On that basis, the Greens would be happy, in the interim, with a legislated charter of rights. If we had such a thing, we would not see the ongoing erosion of human, civil and political rights in this country that we have seen over the recent years.

I, too, rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. As the shadow minister, Senator Paterson, has articulately stated, the coalition acknowledges: this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and one that, in the ordinary circumstances of events, should be carefully drafted to protect the Australian community. However, wow! What a roller-coaster ride in relation to national security—the protection of Australia and Australians—we have seen, courtesy of Mr Albanese and the Labor government, over the last three weeks.

There's a reason we are talking about this bill today: because it is nothing more and nothing less than a cover for the government's failings in relation to the NZYQ case. I'll put it in plain English. It was a decision that applied to one person that was based on one person's facts; so the orders related to one person. The government, in its panic mode, released in excess of 140 hard-core criminals into our community, onto our streets—rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer—putting the rights of people who have no right to be here in Australia before the protection, the safety and the security of the Australian people. But then again, that is the Australian Labor Party under Mr Albanese.

Now, as Senator Paterson has said, in the interests of improving this bill for all Australians, the coalition will be putting forward a number of what we say are small amendments but incredibly serious amendments which will actually strengthen the bill we have before us. I have circulated them.

In the first instance, what is the biggest deficiency in this bill? Well, because the government has decided to rush the legislation through the House and we now have it in the Senate today, the most deficient part of this bill—for anybody who might be interested in terrorists—is that this bill does not deal with historical cases like Benbrika and others. So let's be very clear about what this bill does not do. The government likes to front the Australian people and say: 'This is a bill that—'. Well, let's be very clear what this bill does not do. It does not deal with historical cases like Mr Benbrika and will only deal with future terrorism cases. So Mr Benbrika—let's be under no illusion: he is Australia's most serious ever convicted terrorist—has had his citizenship restored; he will remain an Australian citizen. And that means a whole lot of options are taken off the table, like deportation. Just remember that Mr Benbrika is due to be released in a few weeks' time. He is Australia's most serious ever convicted terrorist. The bill we have before us, let's be very clear, does not deal with that.

The bill also has a number of very clear gaps. When Senator Paterson and I were presented with the bill yesterday, at first blush and first glance we were able to identify very, very quickly what those gaps were. So the Leader of the Opposition, someone who, at all times, puts the safety and security of Australians first and foremost, has written to the Prime Minister today. He has said to the Prime Minister that they are simple amendments and that they will go some way to correcting the more obvious gaps in the bill. They are not a complete fix—as I said, the bill doesn't deal with Australia's most notorious convicted terrorist—but they will address some of the deficiencies in the legislation.

Let's quickly put that into context. What this bill currently says is that under Mr Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of this country, if you are a person who goes overseas to murder other Australians then that is not enough to cancel your citizenship—a person who goes overseas to murder other Australians. Second is something that Labor's bill doesn't do: if you are a person who engages in torture or who goes overseas to rape children, again, Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, says that is not enough to allow the minister to go to court and say: 'Actually, this person has raped a child overseas. We don't think they should be an Australian citizen.' No, under Mr Albanese, that's not in the bill.

Under this bill, if you are a person who goes to train with a foreign military or engage with military arms-trafficking across borders, or who urges violence against some Australians, I would say, Senator Paterson would say and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, would certainly say, that these are some of the clearest possible repudiations of your allegiance to Australia. But guess what? It's all okay, because Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, and the Australian Labor Party, have brought forward a bill that says it doesn't matter if you do any of this; you will still be able to keep your citizenship.

One might say: 'Hey, hold on, they're pretty obvious omissions. Good grief! I hope the coalition puts forward amendments to address that.' I would've thought the Australia public would be listening to this and saying: 'I hope someone's putting forward amendments, because if the government's not, is there someone in this place who actually cares about the safety and security of Australians? Is someone prepared to say, "If you go overseas and you rape children, if you go overseas and you murder Australians, perhaps that is a renunciation and a repudiation of everything that we value dearly as Australians."' But not Mr Albanese, because the bill doesn't have that. Why? They were rushed; they put forward a draft version of this bill on Monday morning. My understanding is that they've gone through around 21 versions since, and they didn't put the finishing touches on this version until after 5 pm yesterday. So what they've come up with is undercooked, has gaps and does not keep Australians safe. But why? It's because the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, and the Prime Minister have been caught flatfooted on this issue.

Let's look at what they've had to do. 'Hey, look over here!'—they've used a great deflection tactic, 'Let's suggest that Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, intervened to grant NZYQ a visa.' I'd say to the Australian people, 'Don't always believe what comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth.' In fact, I'd say, 'Don't ever believe what comes out of the relevant ministers' mouths,' because, you see, Labor know that's not true. They know that if anyone bothers to scratch the surface, these are the facts: when the coalition came to government—just for those who've forgotten—we inherited from Labor 30,000 people who were put into the community on bridging visas. Why? Because our detention centres were full. Why? Because under the former Labor-Greens alliance in excess of 50,000 people arrived here by boat. So what did we do when we got in? We had a legacy case load and inherited 30,000 people who were put in the community on bridging visas.

It didn't stop there. We had to clean up the mess. Why did we have to clean up the mess? Remember that Labor hate one of the pillars of Operation Sovereign Borders—temporary protection visas. When we came into office in 2013 we had to reintroduce temporary protection visas because Labor had abolished them. They say one thing about Peter Dutton, but let's look at the facts. In order to clean up this mess assessments needed to be done on individual claims for protection. Guess what? This is what the law said: you couldn't determine what to do with one of Labor's 30,000 until their status had been determined—in other words, were they found to be owed protection or not and could they be deported to their country of origin? This is what Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and we were dealing with.

What then had to happen as an operation of the law if you wanted to go down a certain path? At staged periods in time the minister—legal quote—lifted the bar to allow a certain number of people to make this application to have their protection claims assessed. Shame on Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister of this country, for endorsing on behalf of his government what are effectively total, complete and utter lies—some might say 'lies' or 'mistruths'—to the Australian people in relation to Peter Dutton. This is not the issuing of a visa. If the Australian Labor Party think it is, that is even worse, because they don't know immigration law. Perhaps that's why Australia is currently in the mess that it is in. I defy Mr Albanese to stand before the Australian people and take them through the process that our former government had to go through because of what the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments did over a number of years. He knows that there's a big difference, but a little bit of political rhetoric is suiting them at this point in time.

We had to lift the bar for a number of large cohorts. Let us be very clear here. The minister did not deal with individual cases at this point in the process. Again Mr Albanese knows this, Ms O'Neil knows this and Mr Giles knows this, but the truth is not convenient to the political rhetoric to hide the complete, total and utter botching the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese Labor government have done in relation to the NZYQ case.

Again let us be very clear. Because of 50,000 people coming here illegally by boat—and I don't have time to talk about the 1,200 who died at sea under Labor—without lifting the bar to enable people's claims to be assessed the government could not determine what to do with them. That is a fact. One of the potential options was deportation—in other words, if they could be returned to their country of origin.

Let's be very clear. Mr Albanese as Prime Minister of this country knows it is false to suggest that Mr Dutton intervened to grant NZYQ a visa. They are the facts under immigration law. They are the facts of the mess that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments left us. Over 50,000 illegal arrivals came to this country under their watch. The Prime Minister, Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles should be ashamed of themselves for deliberately misleading the Australian public. If they are not deliberately misleading, it is even worse, quite frankly, because Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil then should not be in their portfolios. It is as simple as that.

This is just as embarrassing. It is an embarrassing attempt to distract from the complete incompetence of the government when it comes to the handling of detainees being released into the community. This is a very clear fact, even though the Labor Party don't like to deal in facts; they like to deal in rhetoric. Again, it's, 'Look here at these mistruths, and maybe you won't look over here at their complete, total and utter botching of the NZYQ case.' Let us be clear: NZYQ would not be in Australia were it not for Labor's failed border protection policies that allowed 50,000 arrivals on more than 800 boats. Mr Albanese, the next time Minister O'Neil or Minister Giles stand up to accuse Mr Dutton and suggest that he intervened to grant NZYQ a visa, act like a Prime Minister. Act like a leader. Stand up and accept responsibility for the 50,000 illegal immigrants that came to this country under your former government and for the mess that we had to clean up and the process that we had to utilise because of immigration law.

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. As my colleagues Senators Cash and Paterson have said, this is a very important piece of legislation. Of course, any legislation that deals with the security of our nation is of the utmost importance. So I rise here in this place with great respect for the importance of getting this right. As Senator Paterson very eloquently pointed out in his contribution, this bill is important, but it does need some serious improvements. As Senator Cash was saying, those improvements are relatively modest in terms of the scale of the amendment, but they will have a profound impact once the legislation is implemented. It's important that the government gets this right. We as the opposition stand ready to work very constructively with the government today to ensure that this bill is able to pass expeditiously and that it's able to be done. But it can only be done if it's appropriately amended. If those amendments are able to be supported in this place, we'll be able to deal with it before the weekend and ensure that Australians are safe and that these measures are put in place.

What are we dealing with? On 8 June 2022, the majority of the High Court of Australia invalidated the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to determine that a dual national who was engaged in terrorism-related conduct is no longer an Australian citizen. This decision has had significant implications for the government's ability to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who are alleged to have engaged in terrorism-related conduct but who have not actually been convicted of an offence.

The curious thing to ask here, as we're looking at this, is: why has it taken the government so long? This is a serious situation that's been known to the government since 8 June—not this year and not five months ago but nearly 18 months ago. This was known to the government 17 months ago. So it is absolutely shameful that this government is not treating the security of Australians with the urgency and importance that it requires.

When it comes to this matter, this government is showing a pattern of behaviour that is of deep concern to me. I wonder why that is. Why is the government so slow to act? Then, when they do, why don't they fully step up to the plate and provide the total protections that are necessary to ensure the security and safety of Australians? I can only surmise, but my guess is that they are deeply divided. That is obvious. I think that all Australians can see that this government is deeply divided when it comes to needing to be tough and be strong.

The ministers like to betray a tough image when fronting up to a press conference or in question time or when delivering speeches in this place or the other, but when it comes to the substance of what they are delivering, they are found wanting. Minister Watt answered some questions on this and related matters yesterday—I think he used the words 'we are tough'. I couldn't help but chuckle. It's not a laughing matter, of course, but I couldn't help but see the ridiculousness of what he was saying, because his words—

That's right, Senator Brockman; I take that interjection. If you have to say it, then it can't be true. That's exactly right.

This government are not serious. They are demonstrating that with the legislation they have brought here. We had legislation brought into this place a week and a half or two weeks ago in relation to the indefinite detention of people who had been released. At the beginning of that week they said there was no legislative fix for it. By the end of the week they had some legislation that was half-baked, to their credit. But they shouldn't have been there. They shouldn't have had to rely on that. They worked with us. We put forward through Senator Paterson and Senator Cash some serious amendments, proper amendments, led by Opposition Leader Dutton that dealt with the seriousness of the case. The government took them on board.

Who is leading here? It certainly not Mr Albanese. He is lost at sea when it comes to this. Why is that? He has been a bit distracted lately. He has been distracted, whether it was by the Voice or his numerous significant overseas trips. He is not focused on the real, serious issues, domestic issues such as the cost of living and other matters that are of real concern to Australians. But there is no more important matter than matters of national security. So here we are.

We have a few more days of parliament left before we all go back to our homes and spend some precious time with our families over Christmas and connecting with our communities. We've spent a lot of time here in Canberra over the last few months. It will be great to get back to Western Australia, where I am from, and get out and about and meet with people in the community.

We don't have much time left before we all venture off and do that, and with the parliamentary year about to conclude, the government decided all of a sudden, following the High Court's decision on the NZYQ case, that it would rush this legislation into the parliament—through the House and then here today. It wants us to push this bill through without the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee. I think the amendment Senator Paterson has foreshadowed is a very important one. Even though we are hoping we can get this bill passed with the amendment today, it will still be subject to a retrospective inquiry, somewhat unusually, given it will pass. A serious inquiry will be needed to make sure about any further amendments that are required in order to strengthen and cover off anything that might have been missed. Of course, when you rush stuff through, there's a good chance that things will be missed.

As the opposition, we have put forward some things that the government have missed, things that they should be addressing and that could be included now. But other matters, should there be any, could be exposed through an inquiry. Sensible amendments could be brought forward, and I am sure the opposition would continue to work very constructively with the government on these matters, as it has done, to ensure that those matters could be dealt with.

The home affairs minister and the immigration minister have been caught seriously flat-footed in relation to immigration and citizenship matters. Labor is asleep at the wheel when it comes to immigration and national security. The Prime Minister, as I've said, has been distracted. We've got to get serious. You've got a chance over the Christmas break to re-evaluate how you're leading this country. The Prime Minister might get a chance to put his feet up somewhere, and I hope that, when he does—and I certainly wish him and all those he is close to a very Merry Christmas—he gets the chance to seriously rethink how he is leading this country. There are some serious deficiencies in the way he is leading, and he needs to get serious about managing the important issues in this country.

The government was asleep at the wheel when it came to dealing with organised crime through the visa system. It sat on the Nixon report for six months instead of taking action to address abuse of the visa system. While the government was doing nothing about the Nixon review, 11,023 additional asylum seekers lodged their claims in Australia. The total number of asylum seekers in Australia grew to more than 105,000, and more than 320,000 additional international students arrived. This government was asleep at the wheel when the High Court decision in the NZYQ case was handed down. That has seen 141 hardened criminals released into the community.

In that matter, the government had time. The Chief Justice gave an indication that there was a chance that these people would be released, yet the government did nothing. Even if there had been only a one per cent chance that the High Court would make the decision that they ultimately made, the government should have been 100 per cent ready to deal with it. That's the role of government. It is the role of a responsible government to be ready even for things that you think might not happen. Contingencies are necessary because the safety of Australians matters more than anything else. If it means that you as a government need to spend some extra hours working and putting the Public Service to the task of drafting the legislation, then that's what you do. That's what you've been elected by the Australian people to come here and do.

Seriously this government is just not focused on what matters to Australians. In the space of two weeks, the government said that it wasn't possible to legislate a response to the decision, but then it was possible to legislate. Then the government introduced a second bill because the first one was so poorly written. This stuff matters. You can't just come in here, hold a press conference or stand up at question time and answer one of our questions and say, 'We're a tough government.' When you bring in this legislation which is poorly and hastily drafted and which is rushed through the parliament, you can't be taken seriously by the Australian people because your actions are demonstrating that you're not actually taking it seriously. The government has been asleep at the wheel on so many issues, and I am concerned about the message that it is sending to criminals, particularly those criminals who might want to prey upon the vulnerabilities of refugees and asylum seekers and try to persuade them to get on boats to get to Australia because of the loopholes that you're leaving open through the immigration system, and through the corrections and detention system. You're leaving these gaps open.

This bill is important, as I stated. We as an opposition seek to work constructively with the government. We hope that we can get through amendments that are going to strengthen this bill. If more is required through the inquiry process going forward, I'm confident—particularly as that will be in the hands of Senator Paterson and Senator Cash—that we will work constructively with the government to ensure that the bill is further strengthened. Today is an opportunity. Let's get it done. I encourage the government to work with us. I encourage Mr Albanese to take his job seriously. Work with the opposition. We want to do that so that we can get this bill strengthened and passed today.

Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. You'll be in continuation. It being 11.15, are there any notices?

Pursuant to notice given on 29 November 2023 on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in the name of Senator Reynolds, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for six sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the National Portrait Gallery of Australia Regulations 2023.

by leave—I lodge a late notice of motion.

I present the 15th 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 COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 15 OF 2023

30 November 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 Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 15 OF 2023

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 7.15 pm

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 February 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Digital ID Bill 2023, and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2024 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(f) the provisions of the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2024 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

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

Live Sport) Bill 2023

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

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

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

29 November 2023

Appendix 1

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs legislation committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

1 February 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation and understand any impacts it has on employers.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders including employers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Employment and Education Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

9 February 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders including those from the Communications industry.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January and February 2024

Possible reporting date:

26 March 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Public, industry and stakeholder scrutiny of new prominence framework for connected television devices and modernised anti-siphoning scheme.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Free-to-air TV, subscription TV, streaming services, device manufacturers, digital platforms, sporting codes.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

23 Jan 2024.

Possible reporting date:

February 2024.

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti- siphoning) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

26th March 2024

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders including those from the Defence industry.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January to March 2024

Possible reporting date:

30 April 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bjll to a committee

Name of bill:

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill will strengthen Australia's export control framework and create a national exemption for the UK and the US from certain Australian export control permit requirements.

The Bill amends the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (OTC Act) through the insertion of provisions which:

1. regulate the supply of Defence and Strategic Goods List (DSGL) military or dual- use technology (i.e. technical data) to foreign persons within Australia;

2. regulate the supply of DSGL military and dual-use goods and technology, that were previously exported or supplied from Australia, from one foreign country to another country, or to another person within the same foreign country;

3. regulate the provision of services related to military items on the DSGL; and remove the requirement to obtain a permit for supplies of certain DSGL goods and technology and the provision of certain DSGL services to the United Kingdom or the United States.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

30 April 2024

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Digital ID Bill 2023

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders and interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

28 February 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bjll to a committee

Name of bill:

Digital ID Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Digital ID is a major whole of economy reform. There will be substantial interest from participants in the Digital ID system, businesses, both current ad potential users of digital ID, various civil society groups such as privacy advocates, as well as individual citizens.

It is a relatively complex system and law, which involves states, territories, the Commonwealth business and individual citizens.

Referral to the committee will allow broader consideration of the bill and issues, prior to debate in the Parliament.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Early 2024

Possible reporting date:

21 February 2024

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Digital ID Bill 2023 Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Matters raised by the bill including privacy implications and overall digital privacy landscape

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Attorney General's Department Electronic Frontiers Australia Communications Alliance

DIGI

Reset Tech

Digital Rights Watch Tech Council of Australia Council for Civil Liberties

Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Centre for Responsible Technology (Aus. Institute branch) Tech Policy Design Centre

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

9 February 2024

23 February 2024

Possible reporting date:

28 February 2024

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation and understand the changes this legislation will make to the Superannuation system.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders from the Financial and super industries, consumer groups and others interested in this legislation.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January to March 2024

Possible reporting date:

28 March 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and:

(a) the provisions of the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 February 2024;

(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 February 2024; and

(c) the provisions of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee".

I move an amendment to the government amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of:

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 April 2024; and

(b) the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and Help to Buy Bill (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the provisions of the bill referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 April 2024".

These are both extremely complex pieces of legislation. The Senate is developing a habit of jamming through, with undue haste, legislation that is extremely complicated and extremely consequential to the lives of many Australians. In particular, we need to understand why the Labor Party is not actually requiring the gas corporations to pay their fair share of tax so that those revenues can then be used to do things like put dental into Medicare and other measures that the Australian Greens are proposing to help Australians who are getting smashed by the cost-of-living crisis. We want an opportunity to understand the complexities of things like the carry-forward regime under the PRRT, the liabilities that the big gas cartel corporations have and the absolute rort that is the PRRT system in this country.

On the amendment moved by Senator McKim: the government won't be supporting this amendment, although I understand perhaps an agreement has been reached with the Opposition and the Greens on both of these bills.

The government will argue, certainly on the PRRT bill, that this is an important budget repair bill. It's important that it passes this Senate not only to provide the certainty that the sector has been seeking around arrangements but also to support the budget repair that the government has been working on for some time now, since coming to government, and it contributes to that over the forward estimates. I don't believe it is as complex as Senator McKim would argue. It clearly puts in place the arrangements going forward, but, importantly, it brings forward revenue into the forward estimates for budget repair.

On the Help to Buy scheme, I think we again see an alliance between the Greens and the Liberal Party on measures and legislation that we are trying to pass through this chamber to improve people's access to affordable housing. This is an important commitment we took to the election. We've negotiated it with the states. There's been agreement at National Cabinet to progress this legislation. And now, similarly to what happened with the HAFF bill, we see the Greens and the Liberal Party trying to slow this down. You can't on the one hand attack the government over rents and housing and then, at the same time, slow down legislation that we are seeking to pass here so that people can get access to cheap mortgages and get into the housing system from the rental system. That's what Help to Buy will deal with—it will help people who have been unable to purchase a house get into the housing ownership market.

This legislation, again, is not complex. It is pretty straightforward in aiming to establish a scheme that has been operating in the states for some time and has proven to be very successful in delivering those outcomes. We get that the Liberals and the Greens want to gang up on matters about housing and then go out and campaign on that, but here is a piece of legislation that very clearly creates access to the housing market for people who, for whatever reason, are currently locked out. The Commonwealth wants to move into this space. We agree that the Commonwealth should provide leadership on housing, as we've been doing through Minister Collins's work, through establishing the HAFF and through all of the other arrangements that we're putting in place.

But, by delaying the legislation, kicking it off to April and not having it dealt with, instead of coming back and dealing with it in the first sessions of next year, we're saying 'no' to potentially 40,000 applicants under a Help to Buy scheme being able to access affordable mortgages and enter the housing market. It's just nonsensical that the Senate would be standing in the way of that. We've got legislation in the House. It could easily be dealt with. The schemes have been operating. Talk to your state colleagues about how they're working, but please don't stand in the way of the government making progress in the area of housing.

We've seen it with the HAFF. It delayed the HAFF by months and months. We expect it from those opposite—the 'no-alition'. We've come expect it from the Greens on housing, which is extraordinary. But please consider what you're actually doing out there, which is preventing thousands of Australians out in the suburbs in your communities from being able to access affordable mortgages through the Help to Buy scheme. It's a good scheme. It works; it's been proven to work. The states and territories are behind it. The first ministers and the Prime Minister have agreed on arrangements to put this in place. And then the Senate and the coalition—or the 'no-alition', which has been building up on a number of different measures on legislation in this place—are standing in the way of thousands of Australian families being able to enter the housing market. There is no logical argument for it other than that you want to delay, point-score and campaign but you don't actually want to be part of any solutions to fix the decade of delay and neglect that we inherited from those opposite on housing policy.

First of all, I put on record that we will be supporting the Greens' amendments to this Selection of Bills Committee report. I find it quite extraordinary that the minister opposite would come in here and deny this place its actual role. This is the place of review. Today, we've seen the government try to push for these two bills to be reported on by February, throughout a period when we're hoping that some people in this place may have the opportunity to spend some time with loved ones. Instead, the government want senators, in the family-friendly environment that they've created here, to work through the Christmas break and January so that the government can get these bills through committee inquiries in an expedited time. Given the time-critical nature of these particular bills, all we're talking about is probably seven or eight weeks to enable two really important committees of this parliament to have the opportunity to fully scrutinise bills which the minister herself has said are extremely important. If they are so extremely important, what is the problem with providing a little bit of extra time to enable the committees to do their job, to do it fully and to report back to this place?

One of the things that has become part of the track record of this government is that they rush things through and then we have to go back later to fix up the mess. In fact the bills we are currently debating in this place, that Senator Paterson has been putting through this place this week, are an absolute classic example of making haste too hastily. If you'd bothered to take the time to get it right in the first place, or if you took the opportunity to start the process when the process was flagged that it should have been started, then some of these things could have been expedited in a more timely fashion.

One of the things that we will not do as a coalition, we will not allow the government to rush things through this place when the consequences often have an impact on Australians. That's because this government don't always get it right because they're in such a hurry to fix a problem. It seems a completely and utterly reasonable thing for these bills to be referred until April, as has been done by the Greens.

Another part of their other track record that we are seeing here is this complete and utter aversion to any transparency at all. One of the big problems we see with a lot of the legislation that comes in here is it's all very high level, it's all very 'frameworky' but there is no detail in it. Time and time again we see legislation with so little detail and so much left to the delegated legislation, which they will not show you until after the bill has been passed. The opportunity for the committees to flush out some of this lack of detail that's contained in the legislation is one of the most important processes of Senate committees. What the Greens have done here, and what we are going to support—we're calling out the government and saying: 'You need to provide greater transparency. You need to let some sunlight shine on your legislation because of your refusal to provide the detail of much of the legislation.'

Once again, lack of consultation means legislation often isn't developed properly. So instead of us having to come in here and clean up your mess after the mess has been created, we think we should do what this place is supposed to do, as the house of review of this parliament, and have a thorough look at it in the first place. Let's get everything right. Let's make sure that if there are amendments that need to be put to any of this legislation, we have the opportunity for the stakeholders to have their say. Because you know what? Policy that is not informed by the people it impacts is policy that is invariably poor.

What we're asking this place to do and what we're asking the chamber to vote for is to have adequate time so that we can scrutinise what this government doesn't want scrutinised. Every single time we see any bill of any consequence, it is pushed through here with great speed. And it seems almost ironical, doesn't it, that the very day we have sat in this place and guillotined one of the most important pieces of legislation for my home community in South Australia and many communities up and down the length and breadth of the Murray-Darling Basin, the government want to truncate the time that is available for this place and for a very important Senate committee to actually scrutinise these bills. We're starting to see a really troubling track record here from those opposite: they come in here, they push their way through and they try to deny scrutiny. And if they don't get their own way, they guillotine it. We will support the Greens amendment because we believe in transparency.

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

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

I ask that the question be put separately in regard to paragraph (c) of this motion, which relates to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill. I indicate that we will be voting differently on that compared to the rest of the motion.

The question is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the motion as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that paragraph (c) of the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Digital ID Bill 2023 and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 14 May 2024".

The Digital Identity Bill may be the most significant piece of legislation this 47th parliament will introduce. The effect of this bill is to tie every Australian to a digital identity that unlocks services necessary for life. This bill does not make identifying oneself online easier. It will facilitate making a digital identity check mandatory. That onerous measure comes at the price of putting identifying information for every Australian in the one spot and emits a giant, flashing, neon sign above everyone, saying, 'Hack me.' The ALP, Greens and the crossbench have rightly condemned the robodebt tragedy, yet the program was based on the same hubris and arrogance that informs this legislation. Time will be needed to review four key areas: the technical feasibility of a digital identity in light of previous data-matching failures; security over the data; the outcomes from identical legislation in other jurisdictions; and implications for misuse of digital identity. If those in this chamber are unaware of the significance of this legislation then they are proving the need to extend the inquiry period.

Everything that Senator Roberts just said is incorrect and is not part of the bill. It is not mandatory; it is actually putting in place legislation that regulates the existing system—10½ million Australians have a myGov ID. The system is working under the TDIF that the opposition put in place.

This reform started in 2014, when it was recommended. There have been nine years of work. I have been getting representations from the opposition—from the shadow minister—to say that we are being too slow in putting this in place, and now the opposition are going to vote to delay it. When you meet with business and small business, this is the thing that they want in place. They want a regulator in place. They want legislation around it. It is not about giving anybody a digital identity. It is about people being able—

Minister, I'm sorry, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts has just moved his amendment, Senator Canavan, and he was heard in silence. I remind senators who are being disorderly that, for one, you are not in your seats, so you are being even more disorderly. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.

This bill is about reducing the amount of information that is being held to verify your ID. That information is currently being held in a number of places. Every time you have to prove your ID, where you provide information to different organisations—this is about reducing that. This is in response to Optus. It's in response to Medibank. The private sector wants it in place. They want it regulated. We have the system in place now, and we have private sector ID providers who are unregulated. There's no regulator. The ACCC is going to be put in place. This is a system that's operating now. If people choose to get a digital identity—whether it be a public identity through myGovID or through one of the private sector ones—they are operating in it now. This is about enshrining it in legislation and making sure we've got an accreditation system in place.

I can see all of those up there laughing. I can see what's going to happen. We know what's going to happen. You're going to misrepresent this bill, like Senator Roberts did just then. It is not mandatory. It's voluntary. It's secure. It's safe. People get to control the information that they provide to verify their identity. It's about personal control. The hypocrites on this side, who are sitting here—the opposition—are going to vote against it.

On this side? This is your side.

No, you lot all sitting here. The opposition are arguing to get it in—

No, I'm not, Senator McDonald.

No, I'm not, Senator Henderson.

Minister Gallagher, I will ask you to withdraw your comment.

I withdraw. The opposition, who, in one breath, are arguing for it to be put in place faster, are now arguing for delay. You're making people less safe. You're making their identity documents less safe. That is what you are doing by supporting delaying this report until 14 May. It means that we will not have this system in place by July 2024, which is what has been sought and what has been consulted on for nine years.

I inherited this from the opposition, who had failed to get it to legislation stage after eight years of working on it. This has not come out of the blue. This does not require a long committee process. There have been exposure drafts. There have been consultation processes. This is about making sure that people's information and the amount of information they have to share is reduced. It's about making sure there's a legislative framework. It's about making sure there's a regulator in place to ensure that the system works efficiently. It is about protecting individuals' own information.

I cannot believe that those opposite are going to side with people who are going to pretend this bill is a whole range of things that it absolutely isn't. When they say it's mandatory, it's not. When they say it's going to steal your identity or it's a big government conspiracy, it is not. This is about personal control of your own information. It is completely voluntary. It's an important economic reform that needs to happen, and it needs to be done quickly so that we can respond to Optus and Medibank, where people's documents have been taken and have been misused and their privacy and their control over those documents has been abused. Please support the government's position, which is for a committee inquiry to report by the end of February.

I wasn't going to contribute, but I heard the minister in her contribution say that this bill is not about a digital identity. The bill is called the Digital ID Bill 2023. Talk about misinformation here! Why is your bill called the Digital ID Bill 2023 if it's not about providing a digital ID?

Senator Cash!

What is going on here? All Senator Roberts is asking to do is to extend the inquiry into May next year. We're not really going to get going again until February, after the Christmas break. We're asking for February, March and April—three months to have an inquiry on a massively significant piece of legislation.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator Canavan, please resume your seat. Once again, senators on my right are being incredibly disorderly. You're not even in your seats. The interjections are disorderly. Senator Canavan has the right to be heard in silence, and that is what I am requesting.

The minister is saying that somehow it will be unsafe if we wait another few months while we have an inquiry into a significant piece of legislation. This government has been in power for 18 months. If this was so important, why has it taken them 18 months to bring this legislation forward? If it's so important, why is all our data already contained and safe, apparently, and no problems?

We know there are already issues with the security of people's data. We know, from the Medibank fiasco that occurred just recently, that people can't always trust governments to keep their data safe. That's why there should be a significant and comprehensive inquiry that gives all Australians the opportunity to have their say.

What the government is trying to do here is to rush this through without proper scrutiny, without Australians being able to understand what the government is doing with their data, with their security and with their privacy. This should go through because it is our job to scrutinise legislation, and there is nothing lost by waiting a few more months to get this right.

The time for debate on this amendment has expired. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

():  The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

():  by leave—I move:

That a motion to be moved by Senator Tyrrell, relating to superannuation, be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

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

I remind senators that, yesterday, a division was deferred relating to a closure motion moved by Senator Watt concerning the proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold that division now. The question is that the question now be put.

The question now is that the motion proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee moved by Senator Paterson be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:02]

(The President—Senator Lines)

I move:

That the following bills be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to provide for the accreditation of entities in relations to digital IDs and to establish the Australian Government Digital ID System, and for related purposes.

A Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Digital ID Act 2023, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bills and move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Digital ID Bill 2023

Today, the Government is introducing the Digital ID Bill. This Digital ID Bill will put in place the legislative framework to create an economy-wide Digital ID system in Australia.

Digital ID is a secure, convenient and voluntary way to verify who you are online against existing government-held identity documents without having to hand over any physical information. Digital ID is not a card, it's not a unique number, nor a new form of ID.

Data breaches, such as Optus and Medibank, impacting millions of Australians shows the need to protect people and their identities. This Bill will help to address this challenge. The Digital IDs enabled by this Bill will avoid the need for Australians to repeatedly share their ID documents, and reduce the need for government or business to retain documents that could then be at risk.

This Bill does four things to ensure Australians are in control of their Digital IDs and their Digital IDs are safeguarded:

The voluntary Accreditation Scheme

The voluntary Accreditation Scheme in the Bill will enable more Digital ID providers to demonstrate that they meet strong privacy protections, security safeguards, and accessibility requirements.

The Bill will replace an existing unlegislated policy framework for accreditation -the Trusted Digital Identity Framework -with a legislated Accreditation Scheme for public and private sector Digital ID providers.

The Bill will ensure only trustworthy and reliable private and public sector entities are accredited to provide Digital ID services to Australians. Accreditation Rules made under the Bill will set out a range of requirements for each type of service an entity can be accredited for by the Digital ID Regulator.

The Bill will ensure there are real consequences for accredited providers if they do not meet the high standards of their accreditation. The powers of the Regulator in the Bill to suspend, revoke or cancel accreditations will ensure the Accreditation Rules and the safeguards and privacy protections in the Bill are adhered to.

The Bill will provide for a Trustmark for accredited providers to build consumer trust and awareness of Digital IDs, imposing civil penalties on entities who falsely promote their services as meeting the strict requirements of accreditation.

The Accreditation Scheme will give Australians who choose to create, use or reuse a Digital ID issued by an accredited provider, greater confidence that their personal information is being protected.

The Australian Government Digital ID System

The existing, unlegislated Australian Government Digital ID System is well established with more than 10.5 million myGovIDs which can be used to access more than 130 government services.

However, the current system has limitations. It is not national—myGovID can only be used to access government services, and private sector services can't currently use myGovID to verify their customers. This falls short of the vision for a national, economy-wide system. The Digital ID Bill provides a legislative basis for broader use of Digital IDs via a phased expansion of the Australian Government Digital ID System to include state, territory and private sector entities who choose to participate.

Consistent with the phased approach to expansion, the Bill provides for the Digital ID Regulator to manage arrangements for other matters including statutory contracts between participants, liability and charging for providers and connected services, in the future.

The Australian Government Digital ID System is based on the principle that people can choose which Digital ID provider they use to access any website, app or other service that is connected to the system. In the legislation ·this is called the interoperability obligation.

The Minister will however have discretion to exempt some government services from this obligation and only allow a single Digital ID provider, such as myGovID. Exemptions will only be granted in limited circumstances, such as for government services where there is potential for identity fraud to have a significant impact on the financial circumstances of individuals or businesses in Australia.

For example, services within Australia's tax and transfer system, which currently enable about $154 billion per year in tax refunds, and our social security system, which supports about $220 billion in payments per year, present prominent fraud targets where it is critical to carefully manage risk.

Additional Privacy and Consumer Safeguards

Privacy protections in the Bill are designed to ensure that Digital IDs meet community expectations.

The Bill contains a comprehensive range of privacy protections applying to the Accreditation Scheme that will operate in addition to existing protections in the Commonwealth's Privacy Act. If the Commonwealth Privacy Act does not apply, the Bill will ensure that accredited providers are subject to equivalent privacy protections.

The Bill includes measures that will protect Australians' sensitive information, such as their passports, birth certificates, driver licences, Medicare cards and biometric information that they may use to verify their identity, by:

The Bill addresses the risk of commercialisation and misuse of Digital IDs in the economy by:

The Bill contains safeguards over law enforcement access to Digital ID information held by accredited entities. Access to this information will require a warrant, unless it is being disclosed with consent, or disclosed for the purpose of an accredited entity reporting Digital ID fraud and cyber security incidents.

The Bill includes measures to ensure the Digital ID Regulator will be notified of any data breaches of accredited providers under Commonwealth, state or territory data breach schemes to facilitate quick mitigation of the risk, or remediation of the breach. If there is no state-based scheme, the Digital ID Bill requires the entity to report breaches under the Commonwealth scheme.

To ensure these protections are meaningfully regulated and enforced, the Bill will give the Information Commissioner a full suite of investigative and compliance powers. If an accredited entity breaches any of the privacy protections, they can be liable for a civil penalty.

Those less able, or willing, to get a Digital ID should not be left behind. An essential safeguard in the Bill is that Digital ID will continue to be voluntary for individuals accessing government services through the Australian Government Digital ID System. The Bill will require Australian Government agencies to continue to provide alternate channels for people to access services.

Where an individual is accessing Australian Government services on behalf of a business (or in another professional capacity) a Digital ID may be required because Digital IDs help address the increased fraud risk associated with some business services.

The Regulator will monitor and regulate the compliance of entities participating in the Australian Government Digital ID System and may impose civil penalties for any breaches.

These safeguards will help ensure people who choose to create and reuse Digital IDs can be confident that their information is safe and secure, and that their privacy will be protected.

Strengthened Governance Arrangements

The Bill will establish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as an independent Digital ID Regulator with responsibility for overseeing the Accreditation Scheme and the Australian Government Digital ID System.

The Bill will also provide for the System Administrator to perform day-to-day operational matters to ensure the performance and integrity of the Australian Government Digital ID System. Finally, the Bill establishes a Data Standards Chair, to consult with industry and issue data standards.

The Bill will make sure the regulatory watchdog has the teeth to enforce the safeguards with a broad suite of monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers including civil penalty provisions, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will advise on and enforce privacy protections, provide complaint handling for breaches of the privacy safeguards, and report on privacy aspects of, and the exercise of its powers and functions, under the legislation.

Further transparency will be provided through public registers for accredited entities-including whether they have ever had their accreditation revoked or suspended-and services Within the Australian Government Digital ID System.

The Regulator will be required to report annually to the Minister, for presentation to Parliament, on applications and approvals for accreditation or participation, and fraud or cyber security incidents and responses. Further, a statutory review of the Bill will be required within two years of commencement. The scope of the review would include any supporting rules and standards made after commencement of the Bill.

Conclusion

I would like to thank the active and ongoing engagement by industry, consumer and privacy groups in the development of this Bill. There have been several stages of consultation over a number of years eliciting feedback from all areas of the community to ensure the Bill reflects community expectations.

This Bill will provide Australians with the choice to use a secure, convenient and voluntary way to verify themselves when interacting with government and businesses online. Digital ID will allow Australia to harness the advances of new technology and its benefits across the economy.

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

The Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 operates in conjunction with the Digital ID Bill 2023 (the principal Bill) and supports the principal Bill in two ways.

Transitional arrangements

First, this Bill provides for a smooth transition from the unlegislated Trusted Digital Identity Framework {TDIF) for accreditation of digital ID services to the Digital ID Accreditation Rules under the Digital ID Bill. Second, the Bill clarifies the arrangements for transitioning participants in the unlegislated Australian Government Digital ID System (AGDIS) to the legislated AGDIS set out in the principal Bill.

Specifically, it provides that certain Commonwealth entities which are already accredited under the Government's existing unlegislated TDIF policy framework will be taken to be accredited under the Accreditation Scheme established by the principal Bill. This avoids those entities needing to re-apply for accreditation to the new Digital ID Regulator when they have already achieved accreditation against substantially the same requirements.

In addition, certain Commonwealth entities which are currently participating in the unlegislated AGDIS will be taken to be participating in the AGDIS that is regulated by the principal Digital ID Bill. This avoids those entities needing to re-apply to the new Regulator to participate in the AGDIS under the Bill. This will help ensure these entities can continue providing uninterrupted services to the Australian community upon the commencement of the principal Bill, which will apply additional privacy and other safeguards.

To further support these transitional arrangements, this Bill also provides that the Minister may make certain rules by legislative instrument-allowing prescription of matters of a transitional nature for up to 12 months to address any unforeseen circumstances arising after the commencement of the principal Bill. However, rules cannot be made that accredit an entity under the Bill or approve an entity to participate in the AGDIS once the Bill has commenced.

Rules can be made, after commencement of the Bill, to provide for entities that are accredited under the current unlegislated arrangements, or achieve accreditation under those arrangements before the Bill commences, to be taken to be accredited under the principal Bill. The rules can also provide for entities participating in the unlegislated AGDIS to be taken to be participating in the AGDIS under the principal Bill. This rule making power is provided to manage the transition to the Accreditation Rules to be made under the principal Bill, and complex information technology infrastructure changes (in terms of participation) that are not known at the time of the Bill's introduction.

Consequential amendments

The second key function of this Bill is to amend relevant Commonwealth legislation to ensure that the principal Bill operates as intended.

This Bill amends six Acts:

Conclusion

The Bill that the Government is introducing today sets out transitional and consequential arrangements that, together, ensure an orderly, efficient and fair transition to the new statutory framework under the Digital ID Bill 2023.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 28 February 2024.

I move:

That on Monday, 4 December 2023, at the conclusion of formal motions or at 5.30 pm, whichever is earlier, the order of the day proposing the disallowance of instruments made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 be called on and considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 377 relating to the Competition Taskforce expert advisory panel, agreed to on 8 November 2023,

(ii) on 16 November 2023 the Treasurer advised that he expects 'to be able to respond to the order as soon as practicable', however, a response to the order has not yet been provided; and

(b) requires that the Minister representing the Treasurer comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 4 December 2023.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We have been advised that, as stated by the Treasurer in his previous letter, Treasury officials have undertaken an initial review and identified documents relevant to the request made by Senator Smith. This request continues to be progressed, and work is being undertaken to review relevant documents to ensure that content is suitable for public disclosure. As this matter relates to an appointment process, the department is ensuring that the appropriate and reasonable levels of privacy for any individual named within the identified documents are respected. The department is consulting with affected individuals. The government anticipates being able to respond to the order as soon as practicable once these steps are complete.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 418 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 is a significant improvement on the previous version of these laws, which did not respect the separation of powers and the role of the courts in meting out punishment. I believe it is important to protect Australians from terrorist acts by those who have been so radicalised that they seek to harm Australians. Those who have rejected Australian values to such a degree that they have been engaged in terrorist acts absolutely should not retain the privilege of Australian citizenship.

However, I have some serious concerns about this bill. It has been rushed through, and it has not been subject to the ordinary Senate committee scrutiny. That is troubling and pretty scary for such laws, which have serious implications for the safety of Australians and huge implications for individuals. These laws don't only have implications for the safety of Australians; they have implications for Australians overseas, for Australia's important international relationships and for our allies.

Australia has a great program for deradicalisation. It's a commendable, collaborative effort between Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The countering violent extremism program has been extremely successful. It has reduced the risk of the radicalisation of Australians and works well for individuals' deradicalisation where that is necessary. What has become clear, though, is that this program works by intervening early, supporting at-risk youth and building resilience to all forms of violent extremism in partnership with communities. It is communities who are best placed to identify those at risk of radicalisation—whether politically, religiously or racially motivated—and they need the support of government to do this.

The most important part of ensuring that individuals and communities are not radicalised is Australia's social cohesion, which has rightly been in the spotlight of what we're seeing in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Rhetoric that pits Australians against each other can only be of harm and increase the risk of terrorism and radicalisation. All of us in this place should be mindful of that at all times, not just when discussing a bill such as this one but in our role as leaders. We need to put a stop to this constant race and the use of othering of people in our communities.

I will be circulating a number of amendments that address concerns I have. Firstly, I know that this bill applies to persons aged 14 years and older. I simply cannot fathom that a young person of that age could commit or plan an act so horrendous that they would be deserving of the repudiation of their citizenship. I would suggest that if this has happened it is a failure that results from our lack of intervention, and as a society, we should take responsibility for that. Why would such young people feel so alienated, so alone and so angry and separate from the rest of our society that they would be so radicalised that they would plan a terrorist act? If that has happened, it is a failure of our mental health systems, our early intervention programs, our child protection systems and our support for new and emerging communities. Surely a child does not come up with these ideas in a vacuum. It is the responsibility of the adults around them to protect them from indoctrination. It is not that child who deserves to be punished. They certainly deserve access to our deradicalisation programs. They deserve a chance to be rehabilitated. To address this, I will move an amendment to raise the age in this bill, and I note this amendment was moved in the lower house by the crossbench, by Independents.

I also do not believe that if a person has citizenship because they were born in Australia their citizenship should be subject to cancellation. If you were born here and have lived here long enough to become a citizen, you are Australian—you are part of us—and it is up to Australia and the various systems that we have in place to deradicalise you, not to jettison you off to another country where you may or may not continue to cause harm, be it to Australians overseas or to the people of other nations.

It's up to us to punish people for these offences, to supervise them and to rehabilitate and deradicalise them to protect communities across the country and to strengthen our social cohesion. We would not expect another country to deport back to us people who have been radicalised there. How can we expect to disregard our responsibilities in this way and ship off problems to other countries? If we put ourselves in other countries' shoes, I would argue, we would not look favourably on this sort of legislation.

Finally, this bill raises concerns, when you look at the recent cases of Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms, that Australia has been holding a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in immigration detention. Because of a trick of circumstances, this group of people did not hold Australian citizenship and had their visas cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act. How on earth can a country like Australia treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this continent's First Peoples, as aliens in their own nation? Along with many, I am deeply troubled that this can happen. In absolute terms: this bill must never, ever apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and I will be circulating an amendment to this effect.

We've seen this again highlighted with the terror attacks on 7 October. Terrorism is a truly awful act, and everyone in our communities has a right to feel safe. This is something that we value as a society. Elected representatives at all levels work towards ensuring that the people that they represent feel safe. Governments rightly have a right and a responsibility to prioritise this issue and to take all steps necessary to ensure that Australia is a safe place for all of us to live. But we need a comprehensive approach to countering radicalisation; one that is risk based. Any blanket approach that is punitive towards low-risk individuals risks further alienation of the very people that are susceptible to radicalisation. We must work with communities to identify those at risk, to intervene early and to ensure that we are prioritising programs that support social cohesion, integration and community safety.

Terrorism is unacceptable, and I will always support measures that keep Australians safe. But I would urge all in this place to take very seriously our obligation to respect the human rights of people and to take an approach that is going to enhance social cohesion; that is aimed at early intervention; and that doesn't go down the road that we have seen some politicians heading down, where we are willing to 'other' people in our communities and to 'other' people for political advantage. That is not the way to continue to build on this great multicultural society that we all live in.

I think the main point here is that the government is finding that governing is very difficult. When you are the dog that has caught the car, it is a big problem for the country. When you win an election with very few policies and you have people in positions that are not capable of administering departments and responding to events in a timely fashion, it is a very obvious problem now that the country has. The consequence of these actions, or these failures to act in a timely manner, is that Australians have been unnecessarily exposed to violent criminals in our own society.

This was not a difficult thing to predict. In fact, six or so months ago the High Court had flagged that there were issues here in relation to these laws. The government should have been prepared to act quickly with a bill. We had the charade of a parliamentary sitting just two weeks ago where there was emergency legislation rushed in, which was amended the day after it was introduced, following the recommendations of the opposition. I welcome the fact that the government has been prepared to take advice from others, but you have to think that the best position here would be that the government could take advice from its own departments, direct them to be ready for events and then have the legislation ready to go in the instance where the court makes a decision that exposes people to danger. That's what this is really about: is the government competent and capable of protecting the Australian people in relation to these matters?

We are recommending improvements to this legislation because we want to make sure that it does the job and it protects the Australian people. The various distractions that have plagued the government may be an excuse to a certain extent, but, ultimately, as I said, these are not events that were difficult to predict. We have now seen 80 or 90 people who were temporarily released into the community a couple of weeks back who are now under some sort of supervision. It is extraordinary to think that in this day and age, with the resources available to the government, this could have happened. The government is hiring 10,000 new public servants here in Canberra. What are they all doing? The government wants to hire more politicians as well, we see. There's not a problem with resourcing here; there's a problem with leadership and competence in these roles.

These ministers don't have to generate bills here—they're not hugely complex bills. There are bills and then there are bills. We've seen in this parliament that there are vastly more complex concepts that have been attempted to be legislated across the economy and across our society. These bills, while they may be heavy in legalese, are not the hardest bills to have ready to roll if they are needed in a contingency.

The Australian people will always be wanting their governments to be successful, in that they are able to promote policies and ideas that are going to improve the nation, send it in the right direction and so on and so forth. In this case, people will be bewildered that this has been handled in such a sloppy way, not by one minister but by a handful of ministers here. That's why we have this institution of a parliament, because our role is to ensure that we hold the government to account and that we hold them to their commitments. That is an important part of our democracy, and in this case the coalition has played a constructive role in recommending improvements to these various pieces of legislation that should have been prepared some months ago.

If you go through these cases, which have been canvassed by my colleagues in detail, there are people here who have committed very serious crimes against Australian citizens. There is no excuse for any government to allow violent criminals to be exposed to Australian citizens, and there have been particularly harrowing stories about victims of some of these crimes who have particular concerns that the perpetrators have been released into the community without any supervision or any measures in place. This was a huge risk that the government created some weeks ago when they failed to respond to these events in a timely manner. I remember my good friend Senator Scarr canvassing some of these matters in his recent contributions relating to some constituents in Queensland.

Ultimately, we have put forward some recommendations here, some amendments, to the government. We hope the government will take these on board, as they did a couple of weeks ago. It's not ideal to see the opposition legislating. It's much better for everyone for the government to legislate. But we welcome the fact that the government has been prepared to look at these things with an open mind. But the political point remains that we want the government to do a better job because we want the Australian people to feel safe. We don't want people to feel they will be under threat from violent criminals who should be restrained and who should not be set onto our streets. That is a fundamental expectation that the Australian people have, that those people will not be exposed to the community and that they will be restrained in some form because they have committed and have been convicted of serious crime. The basic standard here is, if you've committed a crime, you should face serious consequences. If there is a legal quirk that occurs where serious criminals are released from custody or from other measures, they need to be dealt with as soon as possible, rather than it being dragged out for weeks and weeks without a proper resolution.

I'm pleased to rise in relation to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. During his contribution just then, Senator Bragg referred to the fact that I have brought to the attention of this chamber many disturbing cases, including one in my home state of Queensland where the victim of rape was contacted by a member of the Queensland Police Service a number of Saturdays ago—approximately two weeks ago—to be told that her convicted rapist had been released into the community following the recent High Court decision. The relevant member of the Queensland Police Service who brought that to her attention was unable to tell this victim of a violent crime what protection measures were in place to deal with this issue.

That is one of the contexts in which we're having this debate at the moment in relation to this new piece of legislation, which has been brought forward, again at the last minute—notwithstanding the fact that the government had months to prepare with respect to this legislation and with respect to the issue. The High Court decision was brought down in June. What was the government doing? What was the government doing in July? What was the government doing in August? What were they doing in September? What were they doing in October? Why is it that this legislation is introduced at the last minute? It's such a significant piece of legislation, dealing with people's rights of citizenship, and it's introduced at the last minute, putting the Senate, again, in an invidious situation where we are seeking the best opportunity to discharge our obligations to apply scrutiny and to act as a check and balance, especially on the executive. Yet, this piece of legislation is brought in at the last minute. It's just unacceptable. This is no way to govern a country. The government is in total reactionary mode. They're reacting to the daily political agenda. It's not acceptable. You can't legislate with respect to serious matters like this on that sort of basis.

All we're doing, by proceeding on this basis, is being put in a position where we may be making a rod for our own back in the future because of the ramshackle way in which the government is engaging in this legislative process. I'm the Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I take those obligations extraordinarily seriously. As I'm sure is the case with all senators in this place, with respect to legislation, the bills that come before that committee, we take the time to get submissions from the relevant stakeholders, to listen to their views, listen to their perspectives, bring our own judgement to bear and try and be bipartisan and nonpolitical and nonpartisan wherever we can be to get the best results for the Australian people. But, when the legislative process is distorted in this sort of way, where the government has had months: July, August, September, October and nearly the whole of November to get its act together—and we're left in this position? I say to those opposite, especially those in the other place, that there was some extraordinarily out of order invective and rhetoric directed at the leader of my party, the opposition leader, in recent days. I can't imagine anyone in this chamber who would have used the terms and phrases that were used with respect to the opposition leader, who has a proud history as a law enforcement officer, as a policeman.

He's not very good at locking people up!

Well, Senator Ayres, your reputation hasn't been smeared in the national media over the last few days, so it's easy for you to crack jokes—not necessarily good jokes—but the fact of the matter is that it's pretty unseemly, Senator Ayres, when you get a senior minister of the government actually getting into the gutter, like we saw over the last week. I reiterate the calls of the opposition leader that the Prime Minister should step in—well, he shouldn't have to force the senior minister in the other place to actually give an apology to the opposition leader. He shouldn't have to do that. It's gutter politics and it's unacceptable. For those in the gallery, all it is is the government trying to deflect from its own mismanagement with respect to the immigration system and trying to put the spotlight on the opposition. That's all it is. It just shows how weak their management of this issue has been. It's extraordinary stuff.

I read the reasons that were handed down recently for the High Court's decision. There was absolute incoherence in terms of the federal government's approach. It was totally incoherent. Let me explain. In relation to the particular case of the convicted child rapist there was an agreement between the government and the rapist's counsel that the government had taken all the steps it could take by the end of March to deport this individual but there was no reasonable prospect that this individual could be deported. That was the agreement that was reached. Then, months later, Minister O'Neil was engaging on the run with various governments to try to deport this individual. If you were still making efforts to deport this individual, why, for goodness sake, would you come to an agreement with the applicant in March that there was no prospect of deporting the individual? It doesn't make sense.

Something actually happened in the background in that case. There are two ministers involved: Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil. Clearly something happened behind the scenes in relation to the ramshackle way in which the government managed that case. Clearly something happened. The committee I chair, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, earlier today was denied the opportunity to have an inquiry into that matter—to actually seek the truth and to find out what actually happened in that matter. We've been denied that opportunity because the Labor Party does not want the references committee that I chair to engage in that inquiry. Why? Why don't you want the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to undertake the work that it's obliged to undertake by this Senate? Why? What are you hiding? What are you concerned about? Do you think the evidence that we identify and that's presented to the inquiry will put you in a bad light? I guess everything is relative, isn't it? You're in a pretty bad light in terms of the total mismanagement of this situation over the last six months.

The role of this chamber, the Senate, is to act as a check and balance and to scrutinise. This was clearly a matter of great concern to many Australians, including a resident of my home state of Queensland who was raped by one of these individuals who have been released into the community without any protection for her. She is concerned that her safety and the safety of her family is jeopardised by the release of this individual. Where was the concern for her? When the Senate wishes to scrutinise these matters the government shuts it down. They don't want it to be scrutinised at all.

Senator Brown, I'll take that interjection. What is disgraceful to the nth degree is the government that has lost its control of immigration. A convicted rapist has been released into the community and there were clearly no checks and balances in place to protect the victim in my home state of Queensland. That is what is a disgrace, Senator Brown.

The people in the Australian community don't much care what your interjections are, and they probably don't much care what my words are. But I'll tell you what they do care about; they care about their safety and security. No Australian should be put in a position where they get a phone call from a member of the Queensland Police service, as reported in the Guardian newspaper, who apologises—and apparently the member of the Queensland Police Service was absolutely distraught that he had to advise this victim of rape in my home state of Queensland that the perpetrator of the crime against her had been released into the community under this governments watch, with no appropriate checks and balances or controls placed upon her to protect the victim and her family. That is what is a disgrace, Senator Brown. Now we're seeing this legislation being introduced at the eleventh hour. The government had from June—I will go through it again—July, August, September and October, and now here we are at the end of November—30 November, the last day of November—and they are in a huge rush to introduce this legislation to try to fix the mess that they have presided over during the last five months. It's an absolute disgrace.

In the meantime, they're throwing as much mud as they can at some of my colleagues, including my good friend Senator Dean Smith—and those on the other side of the chamber know what I'm talking about in terms of my good friend Senator Dean Smith. They're throwing as much mud as they can against senators on this side of the chamber with respect to actions which they have taken in good faith. It's absolutely disgraceful. Senators in this place understand the quality of Senator Dean Smith's character, and what we saw during the course of this week was really plumbing the depths and the nether regions of what is acceptable in terms of political debate in this country. It was disgraceful what was said and how Senator Smith's bone fide, good-faith representations have been used in the context of this debate shamelessly. There wasn't even any remorse or hesitation—it's just absolutely shameless.

The position that we are in is one where the government has completely lost control of this policy area—one of the most important policy areas in terms of the government's obligations to keep the citizens of Australia safe and secure. The government has completely lost control of the legislative agenda. They were not prepared for the High Court decisions that were brought down. They were totally unprepared. Their response to those High Court decisions has been totally incoherent, and my constituent in Queensland has been faced with the awful situation where her convicted rapist was released into the community, and her expectation that he would be kept in detention indefinitely has not been met. She's stunned. That's the result. That's the human cost, the human face of the mismanagement of the government with respect to how it has managed these issues. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Senator Ayres will keep interjecting. The people of Australia don't much care for Senator Ayres's interjections. All they want is a responsible government that can manage immigration policy properly and achieve some sort of law and order, safety, and security for the Australian people. They don't care much for your interjections, Senator Ayres. They don't much care for your interjections. All they want is a competent government, and that should not be too much to ask.

I also rise to make a contribution of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. In making my contribution, I want to start by reflecting on some of the very good comments that my colleague Senator Scarr just made. When this government were elected back in May 2022 they said they would be a government of scrutiny and accountability. Eighteen months later we are seeing that the government hasn't kept its word to the Australian people that that is how it would behave, that that is how it would act. Because here we are today, rushing legislation through this place and denying the ability to scrutinise it appropriately. That is why, in making my initial comments on this legislation, I move, on behalf of my colleague Senator Paterson, the second reading amendment circulated in the chamber on sheet 2285:

At the end of the motion, add "and, following passage of the bill, the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024:

The operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023".

This amendment mirrors what was contained in general business notice motion No. 422, which didn't get voted on earlier today.

The Albanese government's multiple failures to keep Australian safe cannot go unchecked, and the coalition will do everything in our power to hold the government to account to fix the mess it has made. That is why we will be moving amendments to strengthen this bill, including by expanding serious offence provisions, which I'll go to later in my contribution. We will be moving those amendments in the committee stage. But the second reading amendment that I have just moved will also have the effect of referring this bill, following its passage, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ensure it is appropriately scrutinised.

Like I say, this is a government that 18 months ago said to the Australian people it would be a government of scrutiny. It has not delivered on that, and that is why it is up to us in the opposition to ensure the legislation is appropriately scrutinised, albeit likely after its passage through this place. We are seeking, with this second reading amendment, to refer the legislation to the PJCIS to undertake that scrutiny and that investigation.

To now turn to the substance of the bill that we're debating here today, I've already talked about the expectations that Australians had of this government specifically when it was elected back in May 2022. Another more general expectation that Australians have of any government is that they take the safety of our community and our country very seriously and that they take our national security very seriously. But, once again, in this place this week we have seen a government that is incredibly slow to act on pressing national security matters.

For context, on 8 June the majority of the High Court of Australia invalidated the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs, under the Australian Citizenship Act, to determine a dual national that is engaging in terrorism related conduct is no longer an Australian citizen. This decision had significant consequences for this government's ability to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who are alleged to have taken part in terrorism and terrorist related activities but who haven't yet been convicted of an offence.

Months later, with the end of the parliamentary year almost upon us, following the High Court's decision on the NZYQ case, the government is bringing this piece of legislation before the chamber and rushing to push this piece of legislation through. I have asked the question, as many of my colleagues have already asked in their contributions to this debate: Why couldn't this have been dealt with already? Why has it taken so long for the government to respond to the High Court's decision and introduce this legislation? And why all of a sudden on the Thursday of the second last Senate sitting week of the year are you rushing this through?

The simple fact here is that both the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration have left much to be desired when it comes to immigration and citizenship matters and keeping our country safe. This government has become distracted, and, like I say, it is not putting important issues like immigration and citizenship matters, like national security, at the top of its priority list. I think it is fair enough that Australians are disappointed. Australians elect governments to do many things, and, like I said, one of those things is to keep us safe. Australians are disappointed that this Labor government is not taking that priority seriously. The NZYQ High Court decision that was handed down has seen 141 hardened criminals released into the community and, like I said, Australians are rightly angry that this government has allowed that to happen and they are questioning the government over the risk that this has posed to the public.

It is probably important here to talk about why in some circumstances we need to revoke citizenship. It is admittedly quite a serious thing to do. At the height of the Islamic State threat we saw a number of Australians departing our shores to go and fight on the ground with Islamic State terrorist groups or sign up to support them. As we saw the spread of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, many countries witnessed a disturbing trend of radicalised individuals heading overseas to fight for that terrorist organisation and, sadly, that included a number of Australians. We know what kind of heinous activities those who fought and supported ISIS took part in. They took part in persecuting ethnic and religious minorities—Christians and Shiites—and engaged in a genocidal campaign against the Yazidi population in Iraq and Syria. They published videos of beheadings online, they carried out terror attacks and they massacred men, women and children. These people don't share our values; these people don't share our beliefs.

The coalition government, when in power, recognised the significant threat that these people posed and worked to pass laws to allow the government to strip terrorists of their Australian citizenship if hey held citizenship of another country. This included those engaged in terrorism related conduct, those who fight for a declared terrorist organisation outside Australia or those who were sentenced to at least three years for specified terrorism offences. Twenty-two individuals have lost their Australian citizenship through terrorism related actions. Like I said, these people are the worst of the worst. They are dangerous terrorists and they do not in any way reflect our Australian values, so, rightly, they should no longer have the privilege of being Australian citizens, because what kind of a monster do you have to be to think that you have the right to inflict death and destruction on innocent people?

Indeed, the coalition has a very strong track record when it comes to combating the threat posed by terrorism to keep Australians safe. We released a counter-terrorism strategy, which provided a comprehensive plan to counter violent extremism, equip our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and ensured our laws and arrangements were fit for purpose—the purpose of keeping Australians safe. We delivered record funding to combat the terror threat, including an extra $1.3 billion for ASIO and for boosting the AFP's annual budget to more than $1.7 billion. We also strengthened laws to ensure our highest risk terrorists would remain behind bars and that terrorists would serve their full sentences. These are things that I am incredibly proud of, as I was a member of the previous government when we were introducing many of these initiatives, and I know my colleagues are incredibly proud of them. I also genuinely believe that Australians were proud of these changes as well because, at that time, they did have a government that took national security seriously. They did have a government that was keeping Australians safe.

The coalition considers there are clear gaps in the bill we are debating here today. As I foreshadowed, we will be making amendments to this legislation when it goes into committee. We believe one of these gaps is in the current definition of 'serious offence' under the bill and we believe that the following should be captured: offences against subdivision C of division 80 of the Criminal Code, including urging the overthrow of the government by force or violence, urging violence against groups and urging or advocating for terrorism offences which operate within circumstances when the person intends for the violence or terrorism to actually occur; offences against division 83 of the Criminal Code, including military style training with a foreign government; offences against division 270 of the Criminal Code—slavery and slavery like offences; offences against division 272 of the Criminal Code—child sex offences; offences against division 274—torture; offences against part 9.4 of the Criminal Code—dealing with dangerous weapons. These are all offences that we believe should be captured within the definition of 'serious offence' in the this bill and currently they are not. They are pretty significant gaps: we're talking about some very serious crimes here. But without that broader definition of serious offence as currently exists in this bill as put before us by this government, if you're a person who goes overseas with the intention of carrying out an attack to murder other Australians then that's not enough to cancel your citizenship. Or if you're a person who engages in the torture of others or who goes overseas specifically to commit some of the worst crimes imaginable—to rape an innocent child—then, again, those things are not enough to allow the minister to go to the court and say, 'We don't think this person should continue to enjoy the privilege of being an Australian.' The same goes for people who travel overseas to train with a foreign military or militia, or who engage in arms-trafficking across borders or who call for violence to be committed against Australians. These are all some of the clearest possible repudiations of a person's allegiance to this country. Under Labor's bill as it is currently, with these very clear gaps in the definition of serious offence, they'll be able to keep their citizenship—if they commit any of these crimes, they'll be able to keep their citizenship.

I think it's important to ask why this is the case: why has the government left this massive gap in the legislation that we're debating here today? The reality is that it's because they've rushed this bill. They've rushed this bill into this place; having had months to deal with the issue, all of a sudden they're rushing this through, like I said, on the Thursday of the second-last Senate sitting week of the year. They're not taking national security seriously and they're not taking seriously the duty that they owe to Australians to keep us safe. In previous contributions, my colleagues, including the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Patterson, and the Shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, have outlined our proposed amendments to the bill. Indeed, I've listed off some of the offences that we think need to be included in the definition of serious offence. We want to improve this legislation to ensure that it can capture those individuals engaging in the most heinous actions and repudiate their citizenship. The amendments that we moved on the behalf of the opposition will ensure that this legislation will apply to those individuals who engage in child sex offences, torture, slavery and other truly horrendous activities.

As I said at the outset, I think that after 18 months of this government Australians are fast realising that they aren't taking seriously the issues that matter to them. We talk a lot in this place about the cost of living and about the economy. But we also talk a lot in this place about national security and keeping Australians safe, and this government is not doing that. They're creating policy on the run and rushing legislation through because they're not across the brief. And when that brief is national security, I think that's an absolute shame on the government. They are clearly not taking the issue seriously enough.

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. I think that most senators will have gone to a citizenship ceremony. That's one of the more rewarding events that a member of parliament can attend. There's always a lot of joy, of course—they're almost as joyful as wedding days, really. People are very excited about becoming Australians, and it gives you a fair amount of pride yourself to see so many people happy about joining our country and joining our nation. It gives hope that we're actually a pretty good country, after all is said and done. This is demonstrated by the fact that a lot of people want to become Australians and they're proud to do so. Despite the rhetoric we often have to engage in in this place, and, at times, the criticism of what's going, when all things are considered and we're benchmarked against almost any other country in the world, this is a great place to live, to be born in and to have the fortune, potentially, to become a citizen of if you've moved here.

At those ceremonies, an oath is taken. Many of us, as senators, would be officially involved in the taking of that oath by new Australians. The oath that is read by a new citizen of Australia says:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect,

and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

That is an oath—an oath which is sworn, sometimes on a Bible or a religious text and sometimes on a Constitution of Australia. But it is a serious matter to swear that oath, and, as a serious matter, there should be consequences when such a serious oath is seriously breached.

The bill we have before us today deals with individuals, Australians, who have breached their oath as a citizen of this country—in particular, as to upholding the laws of this country and as to respecting the rights and liberties of others in this country. In some cases, they've breached their oath as to our shared belief in democracy. So I welcome the government's bill, which provides scope to establish consequences for any serious breach of this oath. This has become a major issue in the past few decades, where we have seen, unfortunately, a very minor number of individuals in this country seeking to not respect the rights and liberties of others, in a serious and coordinated way.

Obviously, this is not about each crime which might be committed by Australians; it arises only in those circumstances where people seek, fundamentally and indiscriminately, to kill or maim other Australians, and/or to engage in conduct that would seek to destroy the country we have and which others enjoy. If you do engage in that conduct—if you seek to undermine our country and our country's values; if you seek to spread fear and terror among otherwise peacefully-living Australians—then there should be consequences for that. In some circumstances, where such individuals have dual citizenship, we have the right and ability, in my view, to take away the citizenship of Australia that they have been granted, because they have failed, in a substantial way, to live up to the oath that they swore.

The former government in 2015 introduced such a process, to deal particularly with individuals engaging in terrorist conduct. That law was used in some circumstances—including in regard to an individual called Benbrika, who was planning terrible terrorist attacks, including at the AFL Grand Final. Clearly, there were some reasonable grounds for Mr Benbrika's citizenship of Australia to be revoked. He had dual citizenship with Algeria I believe. Now that has been challenged, as is Mr Benbrika's right. And the High Court has ruled that—for some technical reasons as to what should be justiciable and what should be decided by a minister—those laws that were introduced don't give the minister the full power to do what had been done, at least in that case.

It is not unusual for the High Court to have a different view from this place. We have that separation. Indeed, one of those democratic values we share is the separation of powers between the institutions. We do have a disagreement here, so there'll have to be a different approach taken by the parliament to deliver the same consequences. The same desire is shared, I believe, between the Liberal and National parties and the government of the Labor Party, to ensure that people do live up to their oaths as Australian citizens.

So, as I said, I welcome the government bringing this bill forward—albeit it has taken a little time since the decision. I do have some questions, though, and I believe the shadow minister is in discussions with the government about some gaps that we see in this legislation. I don't quite understand why the legislation can't be made retrospective. My understanding is that it's looking only at future cases that might arise. Just in the past couple of weeks we've passed legislation relating not just to asylum seekers but also to people here without citizenship, who don't have a legal reason to be here, who we are seeking to deport.

In terms of this issue, we've had a High Court decision that has called into question our ability to keep such people detained. The government has rushed through legislation to deal with the fallout from this. They've been caught a little bit flat-footed, and it's been a bit embarrassing, but we're getting there with this legislation. That legislation is retrospective. It's being applied to those people who have previously illegally arrived in Australia or illegally overstayed visas and who we are seeking to deport for various reasons. They're applying that legislation retrospectively. So I'm not sure that there's really a matter of principle involved here because the government is applying their new laws here in response to the so-called NZYQ case, but it's refusing to apply the laws we now have before us retrospectively in regard to terrorists.

I think the Australian community have been shocked at the government's complete lack of preparedness for hundreds of violent criminals or suspected violent criminals to be released onto our streets. As a result of the NZYQ High Court case, paedophiles and suspected murderers have been released onto our streets, unfortunately in an ad hoc manner. The government is right to seek to correct that and to at least put some obligations or restrictions on those individuals that are released or, now that we've seen the judgement, to look at re-incarcerating these people. That seems to be an option we'll see in new legislation. They're right to do that. That's all retrospective. So, if it's right to retrospectively act against suspected murderers and paedophiles, why isn't it right to act retrospectively against terrorists? That would seem to be at least as serious a crime, if not more serious, in terms of its impact on our underlying unity, peace and tranquillity as a nation. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense at all that we can't also apply these laws to the likes of Mr Benbrika, who has clearly proven himself to be someone who does not live up to the oath of being an Australian citizen.

There are other gaps in the legislation as well, in our view, which the shadow minister is taking forward. We welcome and support the laws applying to those planning, or engaging in, terrorist activity, but there seem to be other serious crimes that would also give rise to at least a question as to whether someone should retain citizenship. As I say, we're not seeking that the entire Criminal Code should fall into this category or that every crime would necessarily give rise to someone losing their citizenship. It should be reserved for serious crimes. There are a number of crimes already listed in the Criminal Code, including child sex crimes, slavery, military training with a foreign government, engaging in or planning the violent overthrow of a government, dealing with dangerous weapons and torture, that are very serious matters. It's not clear why crimes like this would not, similarly, give rise to someone being deported or having their citizenship revoked, if they are a dual national.

I note, in this regard, that we have had an outbreak of distasteful debate in Canberra. We've seen a desperate government that has been found to be weak and unprepared in the last few weeks lash out and begin accusing the Leader of the Opposition of protecting child sex offenders. That's what Minister Wells has been claiming, and another minister might have repeated that claim in the last 24 hours. It's absolutely ridiculous. It is condemnable behaviour and conduct from a desperate government. They have nothing to respond with, so they've gone to the gutter.

I'm not accusing the government of protecting child sex offenders, but, if they want to throw out those kinds of claims and accusations, maybe there should be a focus here on why the government doesn't think child sex offenders should have their citizenship revoked. If they're willing to make those accusations about the Leader of the Opposition, why are they leaving this gap in this piece of legislation that means that being a child sex offender won't be grounds to have citizenship revoked, even though terrorism will? The government is completely lost here on these matters. They have absolutely no control of what's going on, they have no control of their arguments or their debate, and they're losing their authority as a government right in front of our eyes. That is very, very sad for our country.

We have seen, over the past 18 months, the government simply not manage basic matters with regard to our borders and our migration intake. This government has botched the emergence of this country from the COVID pandemic. They came to government at the end of COVID, and it was basically all over by the time they got there; they were luck in that regard. All they had to do was make sure that we could recover as a nation, and that was always going to be a given. People were going to open up, travel again and get going. But the one thing the Australian government has a responsibility for, almost more than anything else, is to control our borders, control how many people come here each year and make sure that we can, as a nation, take a certain number of people, provide for them and make sure that Australians themselves aren't disadvantaged by migrants coming here and competing for scarce resources like land, housing and infrastructure.

This government has totally botched it. They've been letting a number of people the size of the population of the city of Canberra into this country every year. That's around 500,000 people a year coming in. It's completely out of control. They've not even tried to moderate the numbers to make sure that Australians themselves, who are here, are not disadvantaged. We have seen over the last 18 months a shocking increase in homelessness among Australians, even among Australians who have a job and, in other words, should have no reason not to be able to afford a home. But there just aren't homes available, because we're taking in a number of people the size of Canberra every year, and we're not building the number of houses we need to accommodate those people. I'm not blaming the number of houses on the government. There are a lot of regulations, red tape and local planning laws that the federal government does not have control of. They can't themselves immediately change the number of houses being built in this country every year. But they know that. They know those constraints exist, and they know and can see the forecast of how many houses will be built and what housing will be available for Australians in the year ahead. Despite having all that knowledge, they've done absolutely nothing to control our borders. They've just opened the floodgates and let everybody in.

Obviously, they're under pressure from big business. Big business want these people in because they want cheap labour. The universities want them in because they want more student fees. Good luck to them, but we need to make decisions on our migration intake based on what we can accommodate for Australians as a whole—not for the vested interests of big business and/or big universities. They are running the show right now. The government are not in control of it themselves. I hope that we can come together and pass legislation in this regard. As I say, there are still some issues in bills before the parliament that we are seeking to raise to, I think, improve the bills. I hope that, as occurred the other week, we will work together on these types of laws to make sure that we keep our country safe and keep Australians secure.

Regardless of that, the more important point here is that the government get its overall act together on migration. It came into government thinking that it didn't have to do the hard work to secure our borders. The government felt that these issues were largely resolved by the Abbott government, who did stop the boats, despite all the criticism. Imagine if that was still happening, and the boats were still arriving. We'd be in a big world of pain. But, thanks to Tony Abbott and his government, we stopped the boats. We did all that. But I don't think the government realise how hard and diligent a government has to be to make sure that our borders stay secure over time. They've been asleep at the wheel on a number of migration matters in the last few weeks. Let's hope they get their act together very soon, before Australians are harmed by the criminals that the Labor Party have released into our streets and by the lack of control they have over the numbers of migrants coming to this country.

I too rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. I think, for a little bit of context on this bill and the reason it's in this place at this time, we need to look back over the events of the last few weeks and, in particular, the Labor government's disastrous handling of the NZYQ case. That case saw them in complete confusion, in denial, absolutely frozen and not knowing what to do, like a rabbit in the spotlight, for basically a week. We now know that it was actually longer than that. We now know that they had a very clear indication that they should have been ready for a negative decision in that case for months. But no—for whatever reason, whether ideology, inexperience or the fact that the adults are no longer in charge, the Labor government proved that it just wasn't ready for what came when the High Court handed down that decision.

Unfortunately, it's very revealing. One of the clear determinations that the Labor Party have lost control of the agenda in this case is the rhetoric they're now using, and particularly the rhetoric they're using against the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, a man whose track record and strength in this particular space is very well known to the Australian—

Government senators interjecting—

And we see the glass jaw demonstrated again. We see the glass jaw on display yet again from those opposite. Complete glass jaws. They just can't deal with the fact that Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, has demonstrated that he actually is strong and decisive in this polity space.

The glass jaw is on display yet again. Let's go back to last week, and I will take the interjection, Senator Ayres, when the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 November said, 'The opposition never wrote laws as tough as this.' On the very same day they said those words, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, presented them with six clearly very reasonable amendments to their legislation, which they accepted—in fact, they drafted them as government amendments. So 'they've never written laws as tough as this', but we can toughen them up from opposition because we've been the adults in the room. We've been the ones in charge when these difficult decisions, where you have the interaction of the High Court and the legislature, which we all understand is a relationship—in a nation like Australia, where we operate under the rule of law, it is a relationship and a power balance. There is a division of responsibilities. The High Court can make decisions in relation to legislation from this place, and rightly so. However, good governments, governments where the adults are in charge, prepare. They understand what the limitations of their responsibilities are, and they act within those limitations to ensure the safety of the Australian people. That is what Peter Dutton in government demonstrated he could do, and that is what Labor in government have demonstrated they are completely incapable of doing.

We have a government that says the opposition never wrote laws as tough as these, and then they immediately accept our amendments. And now we've got them bringing in this particular piece of legislation, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill, dealing with a High Court decision on—I'm trying to remember the date, Senator O'Sullivan. June 2022 rings a bell. That's a little while ago. In fact, it was when this Labor government came to power. When this Labor government came to power they had this particular issue to deal with. They criticise us, but they've been in government now for—well, for far too long. They've been in government for the entire period that this High Court ruling has been active, and now, in the shadow of the NZYQ case, in the shadow of the Labor government demonstrating an inability to deal with a serious national security public safety issue with any sort of alacrity, they—in wanting to talk tough and look tough, in wanting to live up to this rhetoric that the opposition never wrote laws as tough as this—rushed this particular bill into parliament.

That's right. History repeats.

The trouble with this is—Senator O'Sullivan, I will take the interjection again: history repeats. As Senator Paterson and Senator Cash have very clearly pointed out, this bill could bear with some improvement. This bill could use, again, the Labor Party taking the position of the opposition, like they did in the response to the NZYQ case. Mr Dutton presented them with six amendments to their unchangeably good bill that, surprisingly, they just rolled over and accepted, because clearly they agreed those amendments did actually improve their bill. If they didn't agree with them then they shouldn't have accepted them, so clearly they agreed those amendments improved their unimprovable bill.

Now we have a situation here where the Labor Party is basically saying that they have it all right, that they know how to do this when it is pretty demonstrable that in this area they don't get it right and they don't know how to deal with these complex legislative issues where we are dealing with the presence in Australia of people of a character that is unacceptable. Nobody on this side doubts that these are difficult areas to navigate. These are problematic legal decisions that have to be made and it is a complex area of law that has to be navigated correctly. But the fact is, when you do them, the first port of call in our own minds must always be the safety, security and cohesion of the Australian community. Where you have a situation like this, where you are putting legislation in front of parliament of the nature of this bill, and where you are dealing with, again, a High Court deciding a particular way, it is incumbent upon the government to actually do the best they can to put through the best legislation they can for the Australian people. Sadly, as has been demonstrated in the NZYQ case, as has been demonstrated with this particular bill, this Labor government has shown itself incapable of being able to do that.

My understanding is we will be moving significant amendments to this bill, as Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler have talked about. Those will make a real difference in strengthening the framework that is put through in this bill. Sadly, we have a government that has been mired in action, like a rabbit in the spotlight, unable to make a decision. When it decides it does have to act, it acts in a hasty ill-considered fashion that doesn't take into account all the possible decisiveness that could be put into the system. Again, contrast Prime Minister Albanese in this area—a Prime Minister who leaves Australia at a time when these important decisions were still before the parliament on the NZYQ case and at a time when very important issues of national security were being debated in this place, particularly in the other place, obviously, where the Prime Minister sits—with the decisiveness, the strength, the clarity of Peter Dutton as Leader of the Opposition. Remember, we were only given that NZYQ response legislation at 7.15 am and, within a very short period of time, the coalition team led by Peter Dutton presented the government with half a dozen amendments that strengthened their bill, that strengthened the apparently unchangeable toughest bill ever—a bill that didn't need amendment, that didn't need any further consideration.

Now we have a situation where we are back there again. I urge those opposite, those in government, to listen to those on the side who have a valuable contribution to make towards making this piece of legislation the best it can be. Sadly, the adults aren't in charge at the moment but listen to the adults in the room and please—

That's smug and entitled.

You've got a glass jaw over there, Senator Ayres. I'll take the interjection. We're in opposition. I've said that a couple of times, Senator Ayres. We're in opposition and you're in government, and you've proven that you're a government that's incapable of standing up for the people of Australia.

The debate is interrupted.

I rise to address a story on the front page of the Australian newspaper today. However, as Ms Higgins has not yet completed her evidence in the defamation trial and out of respect for the judicial process, it is not yet appropriate for me to comment in relation to that evidence. However, my position with respect to what was communicated and what was not communicated to Ms Higgins during that meeting has been fully addressed in both my evidence in the criminal trial and my interviews with Janet Albrechtsen, which were published in the Australian newspaper in February this year. This matter will also be further addressed in my own defamation action in the Western Australian Supreme Court.

Last week, I had the great privilege of hosting a conversation with the Hon. Jenny Macklin, a name that will be familiar to many in this chamber. We spoke about the fight for women's economic equality and reflected on her time in this place and the many reforms that she championed. It made me even more proud to be part of a government that continues to build on the work laid by pioneers like Jenny Macklin. She was the driving force behind Australia's first-ever paid parental leave scheme. Now, just over a decade later, we've extended PPL to 20 weeks. It will increase to 26 weeks in 2026, benefitting more than 180,000 families each year and giving working mothers and families a better choice when it comes to balancing work and caring responsibilities.

When we returned to government, we made a deliberate effort to place women's economic equality at the heart of everything we do, from legislating against family violence and providing domestic and family violence leave to supporting an historic 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers and extending paid parental leave. But we know the work is far from over. That's why the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, established the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. The taskforce was made up of 13 remarkable women, including, of course, Jenny Macklin. Their report provided us with an ambitious 10-year road map for reform, because we don't want another wasted decade like we had under those opposite. We want to create a better future for all Australians because that's what Labor governments are all about.

This week I've had the honour of meeting with two separate delegations of young people. One was the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network's FUSE event, which brings together diverse young people from across Australia who've shown exceptional leadership potential and a deep commitment to addressing key issues faced by our young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds. The other was the Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Summit. In my discussions with these two groups, we covered issues that are relevant to young people but that are, in particular, impacting on people from diverse backgrounds. One of the issues raised with me that I want to speak about today is blackbirding.

Blackbirding started in the 1860s and involved Pacific islanders who were forced or tricked into working on plantations in Australia. There are unmarked graves of slaves that are still being uncovered today. The Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901 ordered the massive deportation most of the 10,000 or so labourers in this country as part of the White Australia policy. Only about 2½ thousand islanders avoided deportation, and their descendants today are known as Australia's South Sea islander community. In 1994, the Commonwealth recognised this group. Queensland did so in 2000 and New South Wales in 2013. But we all know that every year Pacific islanders and, indeed, people from many countries come to Australia for seasonal work on farms, and we've heard horror stories about some of the conditions in these workplaces. I don't think many of us realise the dark history of this, but it's something we all need to reconcile with, and we need to acknowledge the ongoing impacts of this practice, both on the South Sea islander community and on the reliance by the agricultural sector on migrant workers, who are so often exploited in horrible working conditions and often horrible pay.

On the afternoon of Wednesday 22 November, heatwave conditions with temperatures of more than 40 degrees Celsius paired with winds of 65 kilometres per hour combined to spark the Mariginiup bushfire. The fire ravaged Perth's north-eastern suburbs, not far from my electorate office, before finally being brought under control four days later on Sunday 26 November. The fire burned more than 1,800 hectares of land, including farms and residential buildings across the suburbs of Ashby, Banksia Grove, Carramar, Jandabup, Mariginiup, Melaleuca, Sinagra, Wanneroo, Wangara and Tapping. Tragically, 18 properties were destroyed, with dozens more damaged, and more than 130 households were forced to evacuate.

My thoughts and the thoughts of many others are with those who are worst-affected by the fire—those who lost their homes or who have suffered damage and who now face a long journey ahead to rebuild their lives. My message to them is that you are not alone in facing these new challenges.

I must also commend the efforts of the more than 1,000 staff and volunteers from multiple agencies who led the response to this emergency, ensuring damage to property was kept to a minimum and loss of life was avoided. These were the more than 200 career and volunteer firefighters who battled the flames on the front line, and the 50 incident-management team members who manned road closures and delivered meals and relief to fire workers. These were crews from Western Power, Telstra, Water Corporation, the Salvation Army and St John Ambulance, and volunteers who manned evacuation centres in Quinns Rocks and Bullsbrook, as well as the animal evacuation centre in Wanneroo. These were the countless members of the community who donated their time, money and resources to their fellow Western Australians in their time of need. Thank you for all you did to save Perth's north-eastern suburbs from greater damage and possible carnage.

I want to use this opportunity in the Senate to pay tribute to the retiring Mayor of Cairns, Bob Manning. I've known Bob for a long time now and have dealt with him particularly closely since I've been in the Senate. I've always enjoyed his company and understood his fierce advocacy for the Cairns region. He is someone who has a long history of public involvement in the area and has previously been a chair of the Port Authority up there. It would be fair to say that we didn't always see eye-to-eye politically, as he was a former candidate for the LNP, but since he became mayor he is certainly someone I have really enjoyed working closely with.

He has a really proud record, and he can retire and be happy with his achievements in local government. He had electoral success, and ran a really coherent and well-functioning council for a number of years. He was very passionate about arguing for economic development in the area. He was also very passionate about the delivery of a Papua New Guinean team into the NRL, and having a potential base for them in Cairns. It's something that we have been working closely on over the last couple of years and it's something I know he was really determined to continue to push, right up until his retirement.

I take this opportunity to wish Bob all the best in his retirement. I look forward to continuing to catch up with him when I am in the Cairns region. I pay tribute to his long service to the community in Cairns, and pass on my best to Bob, his wife and his family, and wish him all the best as he has a quieter time now that his public life is over.

Six months ago, my office sent question about Tasmania's child protection system to the Minister for Children and Youth of Tasmania, Roger Jaensch. My questions included the ratio of child safety officers to vulnerable children. In June I was told by two child-safety workers about what was going on, and what they told me made me feel absolutely sick. I asked one of those workers to share a story that was keeping her up at night: she told me about teenage siblings who were being abused by their carers, but she couldn't move them because she had no safe place for them to go. They also told me that the high rotation of staff mean that vulnerable kids often have dozens of different case workers. That means they have to retell their story over and over again, piling trauma on top of trauma.

I put my questions to the minister's office. A month went by and then another and then another, because this is so important! My office followed up and was told that my questions had been lost in the system. How pathetic is that! I couldn't help thinking: just like Tasmania's children, eh? Lost in the system. In mid-October I got a letter from the minister noting challenges in recruitment. None of my questions have been answered.

Thanks to Leanne McLean, Tasmania's Commissioner for Children and Young People, I now know why I didn't get any answers. It's because the minister and the department have stuffed up on a grand scale—not to mention the harm they've caused our children. The commissioner has released the results of her investigation into the government's decision to shift the management of vulnerable children from dedicated case officers to teams. It was apparently to combat chronic low staffing. The report found that, under team based case management, child safety officers were often responding to an overwhelming number of questions from children they didn't know. This just goes to confirming what Tasmanians already know: our child protection system is broken. It has been broken for a goddamn long time, and the most vulnerable kids are suffering.

I would like to thank the child protection workers who have had the guts to come forward and tell me what is going on—and there'll be more to come. As for the Tasmanian Liberals, I say to them: you've had 10 years to fix this; you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. I'll have more to say later.

Today I'd like to acknowledge the students at Spinifex State College in Mount Isa. You may be wondering, Mr Acting Deputy President, why a New South Wales senator is talking about a Queensland school. My very, very clever stepdaughter, Alex Gordon, has been working there as a science teacher for the past few years. Just this month, Spinifex students from year 7 won—and those in year 8 came third—in the Wonder of Science competition, a competition that is held across all of Queensland. Wonder of Science fosters a STEM culture that empowers and increases capability for positive student and societal outcomes by providing access to high-quality, evidence based STEM education. Specifically, it is a culture where all students, their teachers, parents and other community members understand and value the importance and potential of science and STEM pathways and careers.

Not only do I want to congratulate Alex, as their teacher, and the head of department, Jade Appelkamp, but also their students. In the year 8 team, who won the bronze medal, we have Lewis Richters, Holly Jobling, Emily Wilson and Peyton Burden. In the year 7 team, who won gold—who beat out every other school across Queensland participating in this competition—we have Lillian Scotney, Hannah Lovett, Anneliese Smith, Charli Marshall and EvieWilliams. This is a fantastic achievement from a small regional school, and it's absolute proof of what smart, passionate teachers can evoke in their students, setting them up for a positive future.

Today I rise to speak to the chamber about Lily Harrison, a parliamentary intern who has been working in my office through the Australian National Internships Program. Throughout her time with us, Lily has been preparing a report on birthing on country models as a mechanism for improving maternity care for First Nations women living in Far North Queensland. Her report, which I'm very proudly holding here today, found that over two-thirds of women from the Torres Strait and the cape are relocated from their lands and communities to give birth. This dislocation is a contributing factor to rates of premature births and low-birth-rate babies that are high compared to the state average. Lily consulted with community controlled health services like Gurriny in Yarrabah and Wuchopperen Health Service in my home town, Cairns. They were open about the systemic barriers that result in poor maternal outcomes. Lily's report found that where birthing on country programs already exist maternal outcomes are materially improving, including a 50 per cent reduction in preterm births.

I am really proud of the work that has already been done by our government in this area. The federal government has invested $22.5 million towards the construction of a dedicated birthing on country centre of excellence. In my home state of Queensland the state government has invested to train more rural GPs in obstetrics and increased funding to First Nations midwifery models. Most importantly, we're working together across all levels of government. Recently, I met with the Queensland minister for health, Shannon Fentiman, and Torres Strait community leaders about improving maternal health through culturally appropriate consultation. I look forward to continuing these discussions.

I want to thank Lily for her work and congratulate her on her high distinction.

Last week, I was invited to the Marella healing day, held in honour of the survivors of the Marella Mission Farm in Kellyville. It was a deeply moving event, bringing together 19 of the former residents, with family and friends, to reflect on the past and to move forward together. It also celebrated the removal of the street sign which glorified the name of their abuser.

It was more than three years ago when I first met Aunty Rita Wright. Like other children at Marella, Rita was stolen by 'the welfare'. She was taken from her home in Brewarrina at the age of two. She and many other First Nations children spent their childhood at Marella Mission Farm, suffering physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of Keith Langford Smith. You could expect that, once these terrible truths were known, removing the street sign bearing his name—undeservedly and inappropriately honouring this man—would have been simple. But it simply wasn't so. If it hadn't been for Aunty Rita, her friend Jan Wright, Greens councillor, Dr Mila Kasby, and survivors of the mission, this would be one of those issues that is lost in the system.

Marella Farm Mission was named in the royal commission as one of the institutions where sexual abuse was proven to have taken place—we know what happened there. But despite the real weight of evidence against Langford Smith, the local council still questioned the need to take action. It was only after a concerted campaign and one-to-one conversations with the residents on the street, led by Aunty Rita, Jan and our local councillor, that there was eventually overwhelming support to change the name of the road, and deep empathy amongst locals for Aunty Rita and her story. It should not have been so hard to change this name.

I want to thank Councillor Kasby, Aunty Rita, all the Marella mob and everyone involved in this important community campaign. I especially thank those residents who now live on Nimbus Place for engaging with this story, for hearing the truth and for moving us towards truth-telling, healing and justice.

This morning, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Sussan Ley, read a list of 60 names in the other place. These were the names of 60 women and children who have been murdered so far this year at the hands of people they knew—often, intimate partners. This sobering list shows how urgent and how serious it is that we step up our efforts to combat violence against women and children here in this country. I'd like to acknowledge the work and advocacy being led by the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Ending Violence Against Women: the member for Bass, Bridget Archer, the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, and Senator Waters. But it shouldn't, and it can't, always be women speaking up. Men need to stand up and do more. Men need to stand up and be part of this conversation.

Tomorrow, Canberrans will come together, together with Rotary, Zonta, Vinnies, YWCA, Amnesty and EveryMan. We will march in memory of all those who have lost their lives to family and domestic violence; we'll march to raise awareness and to call for more urgent action, more crisis accommodation and more funding for prevention and early intervention. I've spoken before in this chamber about conversations with social workers at the Canberra Hospital who are having to keep women in hospital beyond what is medically necessary, or discharge them into homelessness. We have the great fortune of living in one of the wealthiest country in the world, and so that is unacceptable. We have to do better; we have to treat this crisis with the urgency that it deserves.

I rise to pay tribute to the outgoing chair of Equality Australia, Mr Tom Snow. Very few people have a material impact on a massive social reform like marriage equality, but Mr Tom Snow is one such person. He made an outsized contribution to the delivery of a very important and critical reform in our country, which we're all proud of.

Tom was a founding chair of Equality Australia, which has done enormously good work in engaging on behalf of the LGBTQI community over the last few years—often in very difficult and challenging circumstances. Tom has always held himself with grace and dignity, even in the most challenging circumstances, and I want to pay tribute to his personal qualities of being a great organiser and a great campaigner, while also a very compassionate and decent person who has held himself in such grace.

Tom, just this week, has been able to avail himself of these new laws. He's married his partner, Doug, in front of his children, and that is a wonderful thing that has happened. This was a reform delivered by many people, and I want to pay tribute to a number of people who are here today in the chamber: Senator Dean Smith, who of course authored the bill, and Senators Pratt and Rice, who were all part of this magnificent change which has made our country so much richer.

Stephen, who is Tom's brother, is here today. Thank you for being here. We're all so proud of you, Tom. Go well, and thank you for all you've done for Australia.

The Labor government are pushing ahead with their globalist control agenda, by introducing the Digital ID Bill 2023. This proposal is nothing more than a 21st century version of Soviet Russia's favourite measure: 'Papers, please!' It's 60 years since Democrat President John F Kennedy correctly identified that the political left were becoming the party of control and the political right were becoming the party fighting for basic freedoms. President Kennedy saw the Albanese government control agenda coming, although he may have been disbelieving of the quality of the politician who would attempt to turn Australia into a digital prison.

For Senator Gallagher to say the myGovID is not compulsory is blatant misinformation. For years, every government touchpoint has required myGovIDs. The director ID legislation, for example, didn't mention myGov, yet every applicant was required to get a myGovID. Two million Australians were coerced into getting a myGovID just so they could continue as a director of their own company. Centrelink won't talk to you without a myGovID. The reason 10 million Australians have a myGovID is that 10 million Australians were coerced into getting one—forced. This week the Senate was going to consider the Identity Verification Services Bill, which would have allowed private companies to hold facial and biometric data for every Australian over 16, facilitating an identity check for routine actions like ATM withdrawals and travel arrangements.

The cash ban bill, which One Nation were instrumental in removing from the Notice Paper in the last parliament, was designed to phase out cash so that electronic purchases would be the only payment option, and so that facial recognition could be linked to every significant transaction. Control is the garment being weaved by multiple pieces of legislation across successive governments. It is liberty dying the death of a thousand cuts. The digital ID is the final coup de grace.

At this time of the year, many things come to a close. One of these is the conclusion of diplomatic tenures. I'm filled with a profound sense of gratitude and respect as we bid farewell to His Excellency Mr Jean-Pierre Thebault, the French ambassador; His Excellency Mr Lukas Strohmayer, the Austrian ambassador; His Excellency Mr Eduardo Pena Haller, the Mexican ambassador; and, of course, His Excellency Mr Shingo Yamagami, the Japanese ambassador, who left earlier in the year. I've had the privilege and pleasure of working with these exceptional individuals who epitomise the art of diplomacy and friendship. Their tenures, marked by dedicated efforts in fortifying the bridges of friendship and diplomacy, have left indelible marks on the Australian landscape.

The role of diplomats transcends mere representation. They are the architects of understanding and the builders of bridges across cultural, economic and political divides. In a globalised world, their work in fostering understanding and cooperation is indispensable. These ambassadors each have a raft of achievements—sadly, too many to list today—and I thank them for their hard work and enduring efforts. Ambassador Pena Haller has been like a brother to me, having overcome shared challenges during COVID and many other issues. Ambassador Thebault I count as a friend and colleague. He has been instrumental in deepening Franco-Australian relationships. His enthusiasm for fostering bilateral ties, based on shared values and a common vision for the Indo-Pacific region, has been exemplary. These Excellencies have indeed been truly excellent, and I thank them for their service, on behalf of all Australians.

I want to share with the chamber my adventure last Friday down on west Swanson Dock in Victoria, in Melbourne, alongside Senator Tony Sheldon. We joined the International Transport Workers Federation inspectors. These inspectors go onto the foreign flagged ships, these flags-of-convenience ships, and check on a myriad of employment and living conditions for the seafarers. Sadly, the ITF's campaign, Nowhere to Hide, says it all.

I was on a Chinese flagged container ship, and I joined Mr Christian Roos from Belgium, one of the senior inspectors and a 27-year legend at this game. This is a ship that carts on the Australian coast. It starts its voyages in Shanghai and goes down to Taiwan and then into Sydney and Melbourne and then does the round between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. There are thousands and thousands of tonnes coming into this nation.

We'd love to know the clients—companies that espouse that they wouldn't dare buy unethical furniture or wood products from certain parts of the world. They certainly wouldn't partake into exploitation of children in Bangladesh and buying clothes from these sweat factories. But they're happy to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of foreign seafarers along our coastline, plying freight into our ports. It's sad to say that back in 1996, under the Howard government, there were 96 Australian flagged vessels on our coast, but we now have 13. I could go on all day.

Congratulations to the ITF. Congratulations to Ian Bray and his team. It is more important now than ever that we honour the promise of the Albanese government that, when we got into government, we would have a strategic fleet that would give the opportunity for Australian flagged vessels with Australian workers paying tax in Australia.

Over the last few days we have seen not only that the Prime Minister is not fit for office but that other Labor members are not fit for power. We have seen the lowest of low of Australian politics. Members of the cabinet have called the Leader of the Opposition a protector of paedophiles. Welcome to politics in Australia in the 21st century, where the dirty, dirty Labor Party defile the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has spent his career protecting Australians. As a police officer in Queensland, this man worked in the sex offenders squad; he worked to lock up sex offenders. He worked for the National Crime Authority. This man lives by the principles of protecting those who cannot protect themselves, yet we have a Labor Prime Minister who allows his attack dogs in the cabinet to go out and say that the Leader of the Opposition is a protector of paedophiles. How outrageous, how disgusting and how despicable and how low is that.

This Labor Party has no policies and has no principles. All it has is a bucket of dirt that it is throwing at the opposition. This is what has happened to politics in Australia. Since the Voice failed, on 14 October, the Labor Party has had no positive plans. They have no vision for Australia, except to throw dirt at the opposition, except to fail to understand how this country should be governed. They are not fit to sit around the cabinet table. The Prime Minister should apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister should apologise to every victim who has been abused by a sex offender in this country, because how dare you bring politics into those who have been hurt— (Time expired)

I rise to pay tribute to Tom Snow, the outgoing convener of Equality Australia. I pay tribute to him and his enormous contribution to the marriage equality campaign and the way he translated the infrastructure of the 'yes' campaign with Anna Brown into firm leadership for LBGTIQ+ rights across the nation. I congratulate Tom on his marriage to Doug Pengilly just yesterday. It's a wonderful thing, having been able to use those laws that we fought for to get married myself in June this year. On behalf of everyone here who has worked with Tom, we say, 'Thank you.' We know you will continue to make an enormous contribution to our nation as you are already doing in your philanthropy work, particularly in medicine and medical research. I salute you.

The time for senators' statements has expired.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last April, the Prime Minister said, 'I'll say this very clearly: Australians will be better off under a Labor government.' But, yesterday, the ABS released data showing that inflation remains far too high, with core inflation at 5.3 per cent year on year. In the last year, the price of fuel has gone up 8.6 per cent. Food and drink are up 5.3 per cent. Electricity is up 10.1 per cent. Gas has gone up by 13 per cent. And OECD data shows that living standards have fallen more in Australia than in any other comparable country. Minister, will you now admit that Australians are suffering a cost-of-living crisis under this Albanese government?

I thank Senator Hume for her question on the economy. I would say to her and to the chamber that this government understands very deeply—and so does the Prime Minister—that Australians are doing it tough and that cost of living is the first issue that is raised with all of us by so many Australians and their families. That is why we are working so hard, in terms of both returning a budget surplus and the measures that we have put in place to deal with inflation and to do what we can to put downward pressure on inflation. It was pleasing to see the monthly CPI indicators showing inflation moderating to 4.9 per cent, down from 5.6 per cent in September. Obviously that's still too high, but it is welcome news. Certainly, monthly inflation is lower than what it was at the election last year, which was just over six per cent, I think, under those opposite. That figure is a significant moderation from last month's inflation numbers and much lower than the median market expectation.

That was one month's inflation!

And yes, I'll take the interjection. It is one month; it is. And we have a long way to go. But this is a government that has put in place, for example, an energy plan which ensured that, instead of energy prices rising nearly 19 per cent—as they would have done—because of the measures that we put in place, they rose by 8.4 per cent. I would remind those opposite when they come in here worrying about—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat.

On a point of order: I have allowed the minister to go now for a minute and 30 seconds. The question, though, was: are Australians suffering under a cost-of-living crisis under this government?

Thank you, Senator Hume. There was a significant preamble to that question. The minister is being directly relevant.

I dealt with it first up, as I think the senator knows, because she does understand that inflation is directly relevant to the question she asked, and so too are energy prices. I would remind her that she and her colleagues voted against the energy price relief. You are the party of high energy prices, and you are the party, therefore, of higher inflation. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, a first supplementary?

Despite the Prime Minister's protestations to the opposite, the RBA governor said last week that sticky inflation in Australia is, in fact, homegrown. Why is it that a Labor government always seems to cost you more?

It is the case that drivers of inflation are multifaceted, and we don't walk away from that, which is why we have put in place those measures which are contributing to, and have contributed to, downward pressure on inflation. And we see that particularly in the context of energy prices and also in the context of our fiscal policy.

But they're going up!

Well, you are smart enough, Senator Hume, to understand—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You are. You are smart enough to understand what would have been, and maybe you might want to explain to your colleagues what would have been, and what the prices would have been, if the government had not put in place the energy plan. Inflation would be higher. I would also make the point that we have delivered a $22.1 billion surplus.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I know that pains you. (Time expired).

Just a little backhanded!

Order! Thank you, Senator Paterson. When I call order, I expect there to be order. I would ask senators to stop clapping. It adds to the disruption in this place. Senator Hume, a second supplementary?

Minister, the Salvation Army has said that Australians will be going into debt to pay for Christmas, with 31 per cent seeking to use a credit card to pay for Christmas expenses, up from 18 per cent last year. Twenty-three per cent will struggle to afford enough food to eat this Christmas, 34 per cent will find paying utilities challenging and 30 per cent will struggle to pay their rent or mortgage repayments. Minister, is it correct to say that life isn't easy under Prime Minister Albanese?

I would refer the senator to the targeted relief for those on income support payments, which were such an important part of our previous budgets and which form part of the $23 billion of measures we have put in place. But yes, we understand people are doing it tough. They are. If I may point out, one of the things governments can do about inflation is run fiscal policy that delivers a surplus. You might want to belittle that, which is what you did when I mentioned it before, but that is one of the things governments can do. You can run a surplus, which is what we did at the last budget. The other thing—

I'll take that interjection. Senator Hume seems to want to focus on public servants. We're going to have a sacking-public-servants approach to inflation from the coalition. That's their great plan: 'We're going to sack a few more public servants'—I mean, really—'We're going to vote for higher energy prices'! That's what they're going to do. That's their inflation plan, everyone: higher electricity prices and sack a few workers.

Minister Wong—

Senator McGrath: the chanting and the constant disruption is disorderly. I ask you to cease.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, led by the chairperson of the National Assembly, the Right Hon. Ganesh Prasad Timilsina. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Westpac, in its October CPI indicator report, said, 'Government policies are holding down inflation.' Can the minister tell us how the government's comprehensive cost-of-living package is delivering tangible benefits for Australians while also tackling inflation? How are the government's rent assistance package and electricity bill price relief making life easier for Australians, while also not adding to inflation?

I thank Senator Green for the question. We are working hard—and I support the remarks made by our leader to a question earlier—to support Australians with cost-of-living relief without adding to the inflation challenge.

The latest ABS data has shown some good moderation, month-to-month, from 5.6 to 4.9 per cent. Westpac, in its CPI indicator report released today, said, 'Government policies are holding down inflation,' while the Deloitte Access Economics Budget Monitor of November 2023 on the fiscal responsibility of the Albanese Labor government said:

The Government took the option to bank most of the additional cash at the time of the 2023-24 Budget in May, which was good for the country's fiscal position and didn't add significantly to inflation.

Government policy, including rent assistance and the Energy Price Relief Plan, has taken some of the pressure off, but we acknowledge that households are doing it tough while inflation remains higher than we would like for longer than we would like. The OECD economic outlook for November has stated:

The Commonwealth Government's Energy Price Relief Plan, which set a cap on wholesale coal and gas prices—

They didn't insert there that you'd voted against it, but I'll add that in—

and provided targeted energy bill relief, is expected to reduce headline inflation by ¾ of a percentage point by the second quarter of 2024.

With all of these results coming in, you can see that the decisions we have taken are helping to alleviate cost-of-living pressures on households while also not making the inflation challenge harder. Our policies, including cheaper child care, reducing medicine costs, boosting wages, ensuring good minimum wage increases and fair pay for aged-care workers, creating more than 600,000 jobs— (Time expired)

Senator Green, a first supplementary?

The government is delivering significant investment in cost-of-living relief, including the $23 billion package delivered by the government. With government policies holding down inflation, can the minister also provide further details on how specific initiatives like cheaper medicines are easing the financial pressures on families, while also delivering lasting social reform?

I thank Senator Green for the question. She is right to draw attention to the cost-of-living package that has a number of elements, including the energy bill relief, medicines, cheaper child care, our housing policies, increasing rent assistance, fee-free TAFE—which has been incredibly positive and well taken up—getting wages moving again—something that those opposite hate. There have been more jobs created under this government in the first 18 months than under any previous first-term government, and I know you probably don't like that either. We've got participation rates at a record high, the gender pay gap coming down, business investment up, industrial disputes down. We've got a surplus. We didn't just print the mugs; we actually delivered the surplus. We've banked the revenue, so our budget's in better shape so that we can find room for cost-of-living relief where we can.

Senator Green, a second supplementary?

The OECD has recognised that the Albanese government's budget settings and cost-of-living measures are helping to fight against inflation. How does the Albanese government's economic agenda align with key OECD recommendations for advanced economies, including investing in people and their skills, broadening and deepening Australia's industrial base, and embracing the opportunities of the net zero transformation and digitalisation?

Well done, Senator Green—very well delivered. Again, Senator Green is right to draw our attention to not only the cost-of-living relief and the fact that we are managing the budget responsibly—and our spending restraint is assisting with the inflation challenge—but, at the same time, we're managing the budget better. We're investing in cost-of-living relief. We're also investing in the productive side of our economy, doing the long-term investments that will drive economic growth across our economy in skills, in the clean energy transition, in our housing policies. All of these areas are so important to the future of this country, areas that weren't addressed under the former government, where we saw a decade of delay. Perhaps the energy transition is the starkest example of that. But the housing shortage is also a stark reminder of what happens when those opposite in government do nothing and fail the national interests of this country.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the announcement by Minister Plibersek to consult—over Christmas, no less—on whether to allow salmon farming on Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania's West Coast to continue. Given the minister has already indicated in her letter to the Tasmanian Premier on 6 November that the Labor government would likely require the industry to pause—in other words, shut down—will the minister guarantee that not a single one of the 400 West Coast salmon industry jobs will be lost because of this minister's and this government's decision?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators, your interjections are disorderly. I've called the minister to answer the question. Minister Wong.

Thank you, President. I thank the senator for the question. Certainly, all Tasmanians, I know, in this chamber have an interest in this. Some have different views but, certainly, those on our side understand the importance of the industry to the Tasmanian economy.

I'll take the interjection from the shadow Attorney-General, yet again making baseless accusations, baseless assertions—

Acting leader!

We've got a bit of auditioning going on here, I reckon. I'm grateful for the indication that the announcement had been made; I appreciate the senator's drawing that to my attention. I see here that Ms Plibersek has made an announcement in relation to consultation on salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. The second page of that statement says, 'Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour does not have to pause while this occurs,' so I assume that the senator may not have read that statement at the time he asked me that question.

I would make this point: we understand this is an issue of contest, of concern, to many people. I would make the point that these laws, which have been supported by both sides of politics—I think they were originally introduced by a Liberal environment minister—are laws which need to be applied fairly and appropriately, and I'm sure that is the way in which Minister Plibersek will seek to approach this. I would assume that the senator would not be advocating anything else.

Senator Duniam, a first supplementary?

I refer to the fact that the complaints that precipitated this review about salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour were launched by the left-wing think tank The Australia Institute, the Bob Brown Foundation and then, of course, the Labor Party's taxpayer funded Environmental Defenders Office. Does the minister now agree that funding the EDO to engage in lawfare that destroys jobs is a mistake and funding should be stopped, or will the minister bow to the pressure of green groups and sacrifice Tasmanian jobs as a result?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber!

I think this is largely a question I was asked on Monday or Tuesday. I did actually answer it. I answered it at some length, talking about the importance of democracy. I can infer from the fact that Senator Duniam has asked it again that he didn't get quite enough Tasmanian press from our first answer, so he wants to have another go. Good luck to him, that's what he does. I refer to my previous answer on this. I would also say to you, we do support the aquaculture industry, including the salmon industry. I think it is unremarkable to say that all industries need to continue to demonstrate that they operate in a sustainable and responsible manner. I know that not only Ms Plibersek but members of the Tasmanian delegation to the federal parliament, as well as Minister Watt, have taken a very keen interest in this— (Time expired)

Senator Duniam, a second supplementary?

Given there's been no guarantee for the jobs, what does the minister say to the 400 Tasmanian men and women whose jobs are now not safe over Christmas because of this Labor government's decision to attack the sustainable salmon industry to appease the Greens? If you need clarity, I'd be happy to table the minister's letter from 6 November.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Before I call the minister, I am asking for silence across the chamber.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator Brown and Senator Polley, order! Senator Brown!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Polley, and Senator Scarr! I have constantly called this chamber to order. When I call it to order, I expect senators to be silent.

I'll make a few points. The first point I would make is that I think an attempt to scare families in Tasmania about Christmas—

You're the ones hanging out their jobs!

Order, Senator Duniam! You've asked your question.

Senator Duniam, I have read you the part of the minister's press release which says that industry did not need to pause. Which part of that do you not understand?

Senator Duniam on a point of order?

Just a clarification—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Duniam, resume your seat. Order, particularly on my right! Senator Duniam, your point of order?

I'd be happy to table the letter that says there will be a pause.

That is not a point of order, Senator Duniam. Minister Wong, please continue.

That's the first point I'd—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Come on, you guys.

Order! Senator Polley, I've called you at least five times. And apologies if it wasn't you, Senator McGrath, but I think it was.

An honourable senator interjecting

I've called you on many occasions as well. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.

That's the first point. I don't think running around trying to scare people about their Christmases is the right thing to do.

The second thing I would say is that I know that Senator Urquhart and Minister Watt went to Strahan—

Just last week. Didn't see you there.

just last week and met with members of the community and the local salmon industry. I would say to you, Senator Duniam: I guarantee people on this side have met a lot more workers in the industry than you.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! We have moved on.

Senator Duniam, we have moved on. I have called Senator Waters. I expect there to be respect and silence for her question.

My question is to the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Today, the climate change minister delivered the Annual climate change statement2023. But what was not mentioned in that speech was the uncomfortable fact that the emissions figures released today show that, in the last 12 months under your government, national emissions have gone up by 3.6 million tonnes. Why are you still continuing to open up new coal and gas mines?

I thank the senator for her question. What I would say to you—and I confess: with all the things we've had in the chamber and elsewhere today, I haven't read all that the minister said—is that I would think this makes the very point that I have made in this chamber to you: our targets are, whilst achievable, ambitious. This is the fundamental difference between your party and our party. We have, for many years, wanted to take action on climate change. We have fought to take action on climate change. We have brought legislation into this chamber, including for an emissions trading scheme, which was sunk by your party. We understand we have to transition an economy which is very emissions intensive to be able to be competitive in a world which is moving to net zero. We also understand that you don't do that by engaging in stunts and slogans. You don't do that by coming into the chamber and asking questions. You don't do that by making political points. You do that by doing what Minister Bowen is doing, which is to put in place the policy mechanisms to drive that change.

We accept that this is ambitious. It is. But, instead of coming in here and telling us we should be doing more, perhaps you could focus on what could be done to transition this economy whilst ensuring we maintain a strong economy. The answer cannot be that we don't transition to an economy that is equally prosperous and resilient. We have to continue to make sure we have a prosperous and resilient economy as we make this transition. Herein lies the difference between the Greens and the Labor Party.

Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator Waters, a first supplementary?

Minister Bowen rightly told the House that the climate crisis is a national security crisis. This means that every new coal and gas mine the government approves makes Australia less safe. Why is the government determined to expand Australia's coal and gas industry?

It is the case. And I was pleased to see—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! The question was to Senator Wong. Minister, please continue.

Senator, I go back to what I said at the beginning. We recognise this is a transition that is going to take time. We don't believe that the way in which we either reach our own domestic emissions targets or contribute to global emissions reducing over the trajectory that has to occur is by simply shutting down parts of our economy. We don't believe that. Now, what we do have to do is to transition in the way we are doing, and we've put in place the safeguards mechanism, and we have a capacity investment scheme, which the minister announced last week. They are all about making sure we make that transition.

I have said many times in this place precisely that: that climate change is a national security issue, and it is an economic issue, as well as an environmental issue.

Senator Waters, a second supplementary?

The minister's speech ruled out the Climate Change Authority's recommendation to look at phasing out new and existing gas connections in homes. Why is the government propping up the gas industry by opening new gas fields and trapping customers in this expensive, polluting energy source during a cost-of-living and climate crisis?

The senator would well know, first, that domestic household gas consumption is an important part of people's everyday energy consumption, and it will remain so for some time. You would also know that the transition to renewables will take time and will take policy.

I regret—I do regret—that we are having this debate in 2023. I stood here in 2009—not in this place; I think it was over here—and I would've liked the mechanism that we put in place then to have been in place. What we did pass was the renewable energy target legislation; expansion of that target was legislation I introduced, and that has been successful. It shows what you can do when you have a regulatory system which actually drives investment in renewables and in the transition which is required.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Why is the Albanese government committed to continuing on the path of reconciliation?

Thank you, Senator Dodson, for this question, on what is your last day in the Senate. It is a question that goes to Senator Dodson's life's work. For many Australians, Senator Dodson is the father of reconciliation. I know that the disappointment he felt, that we share, about the referendum was profound. I ask all of us to reflect on his words yesterday about the result. He said:

That 60-40 spread of that vote makes it an Australian problem. It's not an Aboriginal problem …

We need to seriously think now of the way in which our civil society knits together with this diversity and differences.

'Knits together.' So this cannot be the end.

I say to senators: this is not something we need to think about only from the point of view of closing the gap, as important as it is. This is something we need to think about in terms of healing our nation. This is about the country we choose to be. Will we allow history to entrench difference and disadvantage? Or will we decide to build a future that unites, which is what Senator Dodson has been seeking all his life?

I know we are all saddened that Senator Dodson leaves this place when there is still so much to be done, but I would say to all of us that it is our job to continue his legacy and to continue the task he set out in his first speech:

If we work to find what we have in common rather than what divides us, I believe that we can be better people; we can build a better Australia; we can build a better place for the next generation together.

Senator Dodson, a first supplementary?

Does the minister believe that, in order to achieve justice for First Peoples, we need to work constructively and bring Australians together?

Yes, I do, Senator Dodson, and I know you do too. In fact, you have been a leader in that for all your life. That is your legacy.

We know it is always easy to use difference to divide. It is always easy to use prejudice to divide. It's always easy to score political points. But none of that—none of that—builds a path to a better and more just future for all of us.

If I may remind the chamber of what Senator Dodson said in a report, The state of reconciliation in Australia, previously, he said this: 'Reconciliation must transcend Australian political theatre and promote a sense of national unity.' The soul of our nation cannot be a target for political slings and arrows. On his last day here, I urge all of us to reflect on what Senator Dodson has taught us. We are all better off when we're reconciled, and justice is only achieved when shared by all.

Senator Dodson, second supplementary?

Minister, why does the way we talk to each other matter for the kind of country we live in and the country our children inherit?

Each of us has a role in making Australia a better place, and our words and our deeds shape the lives of all Australians. We know, in the wake of the referendum, many are hurting. We know Jewish communities, Palestinian communities and many more Australians are so distressed by the conflict in the Middle East. We must maintain respect for each and for each other's humanity. There is no place for prejudice in this country. And when we speak, let us strive to speak with understanding for difference and let us strive to speak with mutual respect. Let us strive to always remember our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. At a time of heightened tension, at a time of distress when people are hurting, we all have a responsibility to bring people together.

Senator Dodson, no-one has done more to bring Australians together than you. On behalf of the Labor Party here in the Senate, and I'm sure I speak for many others, I thank you for all you have done for our country.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. The 2017 Launceston City Deal identified 33 projects to increase job growth and support an increase in population, all while creating a vibrant liveable city. Five more projects were later added. The city deal has delivered a number of projects that bring new life into my home city of Lonnie, including the UTAS relocation and transformation project, the Albert Hall revamp and the Tamar Estuary improvements. In 2019, the Launceston City Deal was extended to be a 10-year plan ending in 2027. Minister King has committed to finishing off the existing programs. Of the 38 projects promised to the people of Launceston, how many have actually been delivered?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I recognise your commitment to seeking better and more modern infrastructure for Tasmania. When it comes to Launceston, I know that's an ambition that's shared in particular by Senator Polley, who's based in Launceston.

I'll come back to you as quickly as I can on the Launceston regional plan specifically, but, first, you might be aware that in this year's budget the Australian government committed around $2.1 billion towards major infrastructure projects in Tasmania over the 10 years from 2023-24 under the Infrastructure Investment Program. That Infrastructure Investment Program also provides $237.7 million over the 10 years from 2023-24 for smaller projects in Tasmania. I'm confident that at least some of them would be in Launceston, which is obviously the focus of your question. They'll be delivered through programs search as the Roads to Recovery Program, black spots, bridges, renewal and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program.

It was only last week, actually, that I was in Launceston again. It was when I was on my way to Strahan, with Senator Urquhart, to meet with representatives of the salmon industry and local members of the community about their concerns. That was a trip I don't think Senator Duniam took last week. He preferred to stay in Hobart. I'm not sure what Senator Duniam was up to in Hobart last week, but he wasn't in Strahan talking to people from the salmon industry and he wasn't in Launceston either.

I was reminded of the incredible development that we've seen in Launceston over the last 10 to 20 years, where it's become a really modern, vibrant city. It has a flourishing art scene. (Time expired)

Senato Tyrrell, first supplementary.

TYRRELL (—) (): I recommend the hamster wheel at Cataract Gorge, Senator Watt. You should give it a go; it's great! The department publishes annual progress reports, but the last annual report was released in 2021. Why hasn't the department published its 2022 and 2023 reports? Does the department have something to hide?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I'll have to come back to you on notice as to why those reports haven't been tabled and what the intention is around tabling them. I'm sure that it wouldn't be that there's something to hide there because, as I said, to the contrary, our government has invested very heavily in infrastructure and other services in Tasmania, including through the regional deal that you're talking about.

If I might stray slightly from the question, the other thing we've significantly invested in in Tasmania is urgent-care clinics, because we know that Tasmania, like many other parts of the country, has not had adequate GP bulk-billing services to cater for growing populations and ageing populations. That's why I think we're up to three urgent-care clinics in Tasmania that have been opened. That is going a long way to deliver on the health needs of Tasmanians, in addition to the infrastructure issues that you're talking about.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

By not upholding the transparency measures of public reporting, which even the Morrison government managed to keep, the people of Launceston remain in the dark about the Albanese government's progress on these projects. How can the people of Launceston be confident that the Albanese government will deliver on the remaining projects, especially when we don't know how many are being delivered?

Senator Tyrrell, I certainly assure you of the Albanese government's commitment to delivering on the regional plan that you've been asking questions about. I can tell you that there would be no way that we could get away with not delivering on that regional plan, given the calibre of Tasmanian Labor senators that we have in these ranks and you, Senator Tyrrell. I assure you that the Tasmanian senators are regularly up my ribs about matters involving Tasmania that sit within my portfolio.

Do you want more of them?

I do want more Tasmanian Labor senators. In fact, I'd like to have 12 Tasmanian Labor senators, although, Senator Tyrrell, we might give you a guernsey as well. What we don't need is any Liberal Tasmanian senators who sit back and deliver very little for their state. They like to prance around and talk about their state and the salmon industry, but they never do anything to help. Senator Tyrrell, I am very happy to work with you on these matters going forward.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Cadell, please resume your seat. That was incredibly disorderly, particularly on my right. Senator Cadell, I invite you to begin the question again.

Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. On the weekend red imported fire ants were detected in Murwillumbah on the North Coast of New South Wales. Can the minister explain why the Albanese government delayed until 22 October this year the $268 million commitment in the 2023-27 response plan when it was required far earlier?

I thank you very much for the question, Senator Cadell. I had been wondering whether we would have a single question from the Nationals in question time this week. We know that Monday was an RDO for the Nats. We know that Tuesday was an RDO for the Nats. We know that Wednesday was an RDO for the Nats.

Senator Watt, I draw you to Senator Cadell's question.

It's great that on Thursday, the last day of the sitting week, we finally have a question from the Nats. In particular I very much welcome a question from the Nationals about fire ant funding. Let me tell you about fire ant funding under the Albanese Labor government compared to what we saw under the government of which the Nationals were a part. When we came to government we found the biosecurity budget in general had been cut savagely by the Nats when they held this portfolio—it was cut by about $100 million per year. We had to fix that in this year's budget. It was not a coalition government and not a Nationals government but a Labor Party government delivering biosecurity. We also found that funding for fire ant eradication under the Nationals had been cut to about $16 million per year. It was nowhere near enough to deliver on the real threat we face from fire ants. What have we done, in contrast? We've invested an extra $268.2 million over the next four years and taken the average funding for fire ant eradication from the measly $16 million we saw under the Nationals to around $70 million over the next four years.

In fact, I'm particularly grateful for you asking this question, Senator Cadell, because I wasn't able to get it up as a dixer this week because there were too many other things to cover. I was intrigued to see Mr Littleproud, the Leader of the National Party, on Sky News yesterday, telling our government that we shouldn't be providing any more funding for fire ant eradication in Queensland. So you want to cut the funding that we've now installed and leave fire ants running rampant. What a disgraceful position for the National Party!

Senator Cadell, a first supplementary?

The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program stated that the strategic review had stated that at least $200 million to $300 million per year will be required for eradication to be achieved by 2032. However, only $94 million was spent in 2022-23. Why is this government not demonstrating leadership in committing the funding that's required to eradicate them?

Thank you again, Senator Cadell. It's not often that you get an over where you get six full tosses in a row, but here we go! I'm looking forward to the third one as well. Senator Cadell, I'm very sorry that you were given this question because I know that you do care about these matters, but your party's track record on this issue is absolutely abysmal. As I say, I cannot believe that only yesterday your party leader, Mr Littleproud—who is the current shadow agriculture minister and who was the agriculture minister who cut funding for fire ant eradication—told Sky News that the Queensland government 'shouldn't be given any more money to deal with the spread of fire ants'. Can you believe that the National Party is saying that there should be no more funding for the Queensland government for fire ants? Where do you want them? Do you want them running around not just Queensland but also New South Wales, the Hunter, Victoria, Tasmania—they'll probably catch the ferry over, if Mr Littleproud has his way—and South Australia. You want to cut funding that we provided— (Time expired.)

Senator Cadell, a second supplementary?

With the Queensland government unable to stop the fire ants in their own state, they've now progressed 13 kilometres from the Queensland border and away from your home. Why should the Albanese government not urgently review the adequacy of the fire ant eradication funding and find ways to commit to topping up the funding where it is needed.

Let's make this a pull shot over the field for six! Senator Cadell, I'm sorry that you were given this question to ask. None of your colleagues were willing to ask this question. Senator Cadell, you've just asked me to bring forward funding. That is exactly what we have done. When we were elected, we brought forward the funding that remained in the fire ant eradication program that was left behind by your government, and now we've added an extra $268.2 million. Senator Cadell, you might be asking us to bring forward more funding. Your party leader wants to cut the funding that we're delivering to Queensland. He wants to get rid of the fire ant eradication program. Has he spoken to Queensland farmers about that? I know Senator McKenzie hasn't ever met a farmer. I don't know whether the farmers in Victoria would support cutting the fire ant eradication program. You want us to cut the $268.2 million that we've dedicated to this program. The National Party, we know, gave up caring about farmers a long time ago. Senator Canavan's on the record saying that they're not core constituents of the National Party, and Mr Littleproud has just proven it as well. (Time expired.)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. I'm concerned about the vile rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia. I'd like to understand what the government is doing about this distressing situation. Can the minister please inform the Senate what measures the government is currently implementing to ensure the safety and security of international delegations visiting Australia, particularly in light of the recent incident at the Crowne Plaza Melbourne, involving a delegation of families of victims and hostages in the Hamas-Israeli conflict?

Thank you, Senator Van, for the question. I will pick up the last part of your question. I want to make some comments, in fact, about that issue. My first response to those who engaged in those protests is: 'Have some decency.' I had the privilege, as did many people, of meeting with the loved ones of those killed or taken hostage. I know that our members of parliament met them. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I met with a delegation. They're dealing with a horrific situation. There were people who have lost children and siblings whose brother was taken hostage. I think for protestors to go out of their way to their hotel to engage in what was intimidating behaviour is really beyond contempt. And what I'd say to people in this country is we all have our beliefs, and some people in this country have very different beliefs on this issue. But, as I've said many times in this place, the strength of your conviction about your view should not override your fundamental decency and your recognition of the humanity of the other. It is disturbing and distressing, and it does nothing to advance the calls for peace in the region.

We will always denounce antisemitism. We reject it utterly; we all should. We should denounce all forms of prejudice in this country. (Time expired)

Senator Van, first supplementary?

In the context of that recent confrontation involving the Israeli delegation and pro-Palestinian protesters, some have called it victim blaming. How does the government propose to balance the right to free speech and peaceful protest with the imperative to maintain public order and protect international visitors? Additionally, what specific guidelines and protocols are in place to manage situations where the right to protest and the safety of individuals may come into conflict?

I think in your question, Senator Van, you actually go to the very issue, which is all of our rights are not absolute—or very few. The right to freedom of speech needs to be balanced by the right for people to feel safe and to be safe. That's the balance we seek to have, for example, in the Racial Discrimination Act with section 18C. That's the balance we should exercise and observe as leaders in this place. People have a right to peaceful protest in this country, but that should not extend to violence or intimidation.

Again, I go back to this point: no matter how fervently any one of us believes that we are right, that does not give us the right to disregard the experience of others or to behaviour in a way that is not decent. All sides of the debate should remember that. (Time expired)

Senator Van, second supplementary?

In light of the recent event where teachers in Victorian schools had been reported to have engaged in pro-Palestinian actions, what measures is the government taking to ensure political activism does not infringe upon the neutrality expected in educational settings, and how does the government plan to address this issue while respecting freedom of expression?

I think Senator Watt was asked that question this week, and he referred to Minister Clare's public statement—that he believes children should be at school. Again, I think your question goes to the heart of how we, as a multicultural society with a range of different views and a range of different experiences, manage our differences. I am someone who believes—as I would hope most people in this chamber believe—that our multiculturalism and our diversity is such a great strength of this country. It's one of the things that makes me most proud, and Victoria, as you know, is the most multicultural state. Now I've said that, you watch—I'm going to get a lot of criticism from New South Wales! But I think statistically that is the case.

Queensland is.

Queensland is, Senator Rennick says. We also have to make sure we manage our differences respectfully, and this has been hard to do, because people are distressed. But we would continue to urge people to do so. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Australia's tourism industry makes an extremely valuable contribution to jobs across Australia and to our national economy. However, in recent years, the industry has faced challenges presented by the pandemic. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest outlook for the recovery and future growth of this vital sector?

I thank Senator Stewart for her question. I know she has a great interest in the tourism sector, as it affects the great state of Victoria. On Tuesday, Australia's latest tourism forecasts for 2023-2028 were released, showing a stronger outlook for international arrivals growth than previous predictions. The forecast tells us that international tourist spend in Australia will exceed pre-pandemic levels in 2024. International arrivals in Australia will exceed pre-pandemic levels in 2025, and domestic tourism spend, which already exceeds its pre-pandemic level, will continue to rise. In Senator Stewart's home state, domestic visitor nights are due to increase by eight per cent this year. This is thanks to the reopening of China to outbound travel and a more positive look for the return of Chinese visitation to Australia, sustained high growth in international arrivals to Australia throughout 2023 to date, continued reopening of flight routes and commencement of new flight routes connecting Australia to the broader markets.

Of course, we know that tourism businesses still face challenges. Unlike those opposite, who withdrew critical support nearly a year before Australia's international borders reopened, this government is committed to continuing our work with industry to help it rebuild and grow. We're delivering a package of support designed in consultation with industry to address the challenges industry identified as barriers to its recovery. And as the tourism forecasts show, the outlook for the future of Australian tourism industry is a positive one.

Senator Stewart, a first supplementary?

Thank you for those great statistics, especially for Victoria. What actions is the Albanese government taking to support the Australian tourism industry to bounce back from the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic and help it grow into the future?

(—) (): I thank Senator Stewart for her first supplementary question. The Albanese Labor government is supporting Australia's tourism industry in many, many ways. Our 'Come and say g'day' campaign has been viewed 1.15 billion times. We've delivered a $48 million package for the industry, including grants to help tourism exporters reconnect with key markets, funding for activities that encourage people to choose tourism as a career and of course helping caravan park operators like Paul and Teresa Boswell in Palm Cove, who are installing an accessible swimming pool thanks to a $100,000 grant under our $10 million caravan park program. (Time expired)

Senator Stewart, a second supplementary?

How is the Albanese government working with Australia's tourism industry to help businesses future proof themselves and adapt to changing consumer expectations, including through helping them offer more sustainable and attractive experiences to both domestic and international visitors?

I thank Senator Stewart for her second supplementary question. We know through consumer demand research that more travellers are considering sustainability when planning their holidays. The Albanese Labor government wants Australian tourism businesses to benefit from this burgeoning market. That's why last week I joined my state and territory colleagues to launch the sustainable tourism toolkit. The toolkit provides clear, practical advice for businesses on how they can operate more sustainably, allowing them to attract this growing market, while cutting their own costs on things like energy and water.

Oh, good luck!

Well, we're doing it, Senator Scarr. A sustainable thriving tourism industry means jobs, growth and infrastructure for the benefit of our communities— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, why did the Minister for Home Affairs fail to prepare for an expected High Court loss and then falsely claim she was advised the government would win?

I don't accept the propositions in the question.

I know, Senator Cash, that you would like me to agree with every proposition you put to me, but I've found, over the time you've been here, that that is not actually a very sensible practice. What I will say—

That's impugning.

She puts things to me. She's allowed to. I'm allowed to say no. That's how it goes. That's what we do. What I would say to the senator is that we know that we have been confronted with not one but two, actually, High Court decisions which have struck down laws that either were put in place by you or—

So the minister can say whatever she likes.

Senator Ruston!

put in place by you—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left!

It is good, isn't it? They concede that they put these laws in place—the ones that've been struck down—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left!

Why did she say, with respect—

Senator Cash, I'm calling you to order and I'm calling those on my left to order. The question has been asked; the minister is answering it.

Senator Ruston! Order!

Order! Senator O'Sullivan, you're not in a debate with me. I am simply asking you to be respectful and stop interjecting. Minister Wong.

I know that those opposite don't like to be reminded that the laws that were struck down were laws that Mr Dutton had put in place or schemes that he'd put in place, but that is the case. The point I'd make is that you don't make Australians safer by shouting or by putting in place laws which the High Court strikes down, but that seems to be Mr Dutton's approach.

Opposition senators interjecting—

That seems to be Mr Dutton's approach. We have made sure—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Once again, order on my left!

All so angry, so angry.

Senator Ayres! Minister Wong, please continue.

Thank you. The government have, at all times, made community safety our first priority. Do you know what those opposite have made their first priority? Their political interest. You can always count on the coalition and you can always count on the Liberal Party to put their own political interests first. You can always count on Mr Dutton to put his own political interests first. Of course, please do ask me another question, because I want to get to the fact that you voted with the Greens against strengthening the laws.

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

The Minister for Home Affairs claimed urgent laws to address this crisis weren't necessary—until the coalition wrote them for her. Despite your government's desperate and pathetic attempts to blame the opposition, isn't it true that this detention crisis is entirely of your own making?

I would remind those opposite that the—

That you let them out.

I'll take that interjection. Yes, we complied with the High Court decision. I know that those opposite asked—

A government senator: They want a bit of robodebt.

A bit of robodebt—that's what you want to do, isn't it? You want a government that doesn't comply with the law. But what we have done is put in place a stronger legislative framework to assure community safety. That's in stark contrast to what occurred in the House yesterday, or the day before, when Mr Dutton, despite beating his chest about how tough he is and how much he cares about community safety, voted with the Greens against legislation which was about strengthening visa conditions. So, every time you talk tough on this, let everybody know Senator Cash's party voted with the Greens against stronger conditions.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! The level of shouting and disorder in this chamber—from both sides, but particularly from my left—is quite disgraceful. There is little point in me calling for order and trying to shout louder than those who are shouting. I'm asking you to be respectful. I'm asking you to listen in silence. I should not have to repeatedly call for order. Senator Cash, a second supplementary?

The Minister for Home Affairs claimed the coalition's preventive detention proposal was 'utterly impossible', but then she said the parliament would rise without legislating it. Now, the minister can't or won't explain how one of the 141 criminals she released managed to avoid the authorities. Why is the minister's job safe when the Australian public is not?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm not going to call the minister until there is silence. Senator Brown, that applies to you. Order!

What we do know about those opposite is, when it comes to national security, they look for political advantage, but they never offer solutions. Did you know that Mr Dutton intervened, as the then minister for immigration, to allow—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I would expect that, when I ask for silence in this chamber, it will be respected. I should not have to sit the minister down. I should not have to repeatedly remind senators in here that shouting is completely disorderly. It is not your role to shout louder than the person responding, whether you like it or not. It is your role to sit in silence, and that is what I expect.

Mr Dutton intervened as the then minister for immigration to allow the convicted paedophile at the centre of the High Court case, NZYQ, to apply for a new visa in 2016. Instead of seeking to remove him from Australia, he made a decision that enabled the convicted person to stay in Australia. So he was in Australia until the day the High Court made the decision because of a decision of Mr Dutton's.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Minister Wong, I have Senator Hanson-Young on her feet.

Order! Senator Paterson! I'll remind you all that Senator Hanson-Young through stood halfway through those incredibly loud and rude and disrespectful interjections, particularly from those on my left. Senator Hanson-Young, I suspect I can guess what you're going to call your point of order on, but please go ahead.

Thank you, President. You've made my point of order for me.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I move:

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

I'd like to say there's an embarrassment of riches, but there is an embarrassment of failures on the other side when we look at the variety of questions asked from this side of the chamber on a variety of serious issues impacting the people of Australia and the litany of failures from those opposite across a range of portfolio areas.

We could talk about the national security issue or the asylum seeker problems and the litany of failures that we've had there. It's now clear from the High Court judgement that the 140 people who were released from detention didn't necessarily need to be if the government had been stronger in its approach to national security issues. We've seen repeated attacks by those opposite on the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, because he is someone who, while in government, showed strength in this area. They're attacking the person rather than the policy. They've had little to say, in fact, in relation to their own policy because it has been so disorganised, chaotic, jumbled and incoherent. As I said in a previous contribution, they were like a rabbit in the spotlight; they froze for a week following the High Court decision. They couldn't work out whether they needed legislation or whether they didn't. They couldn't work out whether they wanted to look strong and try to respond or whether they wanted to play to the far-left end of the political spectrum. As a result, they sat there on their hands while the Australian people were put at risk.

But what I was actually going to talk about was the cost of living! That's because it's the issue which is brought up the most with me in meetings across my home state of Western Australia. I'm sure Senator O'Sullivan would agree with me on this: the first and last topic that people bring up is the cost-of-living pressure on Australian families and on Australian small businesses. We've seen the current and persistent high inflation which those opposite, those in the government, seem to want to wear as a badge of success. But when core inflation is still 5.3 per cent in this economy, that's not a badge of success—that's a badge of pain. It's a badge of pain for every Australian family out there: everyone who is paying off a mortgage, everyone who is struggling with their grocery bills during the week and everyone who is thinking twice about filling up their car with petrol. They're having to tell their kids that playing sport is just a bit too much, that their budget can't hold it. Christmas is less than a month away and Australian families out there are suffering.

Whilst this government want to talk about what they've done, the fact is that their talking points are the same talking points that we on this side heard three months ago, six months ago and nine months ago. I think I first raised inflation as a topic in this place in August of last year, and the talking points they're using today are still the same ones. What have they done? Cheaper child care. The fact is that when I talked to a member of the Western Australian community just yesterday, their childcare costs had gone up, and it's because this is government doesn't understand the way their policies interact with the real world—

I'll take that interjection, Senator O'Sullivan. As he said, this is a government which just can't manage the economy. It has left all the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which means that interest rates in Australia will stay higher for longer than they otherwise would have to be. That's the legacy of this Labor government, and every Australian family is going to feel at this Christmas.

Those opposite know it. They're trying to pretend otherwise; they're trying to spread some justification for their current policy positions. They're trying to pretend that their policy on energy has actually brought energy prices down, when every Australian family knows it has actually pushed them up. They're trying to pretend that they're doing things to help Australian families, when every Australian family knows that the cost of living has gone up massively and that their real standard of living has plummeted.

What we saw from the opposition in this question time was what I would call a series of dixers. We heard questions from the opposition which allowed our ministers to set the record straight and ensure that we could talk about the things our government is doing, particularly on the cost of living. But whether they were about red imported fire ants in Queensland or working with Tasmanian farmers and senators like Senator Polley to make sure we protect Tasmanian jobs, these were dixer questions written by the opposition which allowed the Labor government to talk about the good work we're doing to make sure we can deal with the cost of living and make sure that people know that these measures are bringing and keeping inflation down. That's exactly what Minister Gallagher was able to speak about today.

When it comes to cost of living, I'm glad that Senator Brockman eventually got to talking about cost of living after two minutes of waffling around, because it is the most important thing to people. It is the most important thing that people are talking to us about. It is the priority of this government. Those opposite want to have a debate about nasty politics and turn this place into a nasty political debate, but we are focused on cost of living. That's exactly what we are talking about.

Protector of pedophiles.

Senator McGrath—please.

When we talk about energy bill price relief and the fact that those opposite voted against it, of course they're going to shout over me, because it is embarrassing for those opposite that they voted against energy bill price relief for some of the lowest income earners in this country. I understand why you would talk over me when I say that. I understand why you don't want us to talk about cheaper medicines. And I understand why you don't want us to talk about the fact that people are saving on medicines in this country, because Australians know that, in this Senate, you voted six times against that policy. You hated cheaper medicines so much that you voted six times to disallow that policy. I understand why it's very difficult for you to go out there and talk to people about cost of living when you voted against cheaper bills and when you voted against cheaper medicines.

The thing that is most embarrassing for those opposite when we talk about cost of living is when we talk about wages and making sure that people have more money in their pocket. If you are serious about cost of living and care about cost of living, then you need to show what you have done to put more money into people's pockets and lift their wages. What have you done to help? Well, you voted against the secure jobs and better pay act. That's what you voted against: a bill to deliver—wait for it—secure jobs and better pay for Australians.

But I take what Senator Brockman said; we have been talking about secure jobs for a long time now. Let's talk about what the opposition did this week when it comes to the cost of living and secure jobs. Just this week those opposite voted against our closing loopholes bill, a bill that would make sure that we close the loopholes that are driving down wages, particularly in regional Queensland. I note that in the House of Representatives the closing loopholes bill was voted against by the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry; the member for Flynn; and the member for Dawson—all of the people that go out there and say they support mining workers. They don't support mining workers if they don't support the closing loopholes bill.

The number one issue that we talk to people about, particularly in regional Queensland and regional Australia, is housing. Today we saw those opposite team up with the Greens to play politics on housing again with your friends down there on the other side of the chamber—the Max Chandler-Mathers of the world are now friends with those people here—to delay a bill that would make sure that 40,000 low-income earners have access to buy a home. That's what you voted against today: to delay a bill like that; to make it harder; to make that policy take longer; and to avoid a policy that would make sure that 40,000 low- and middle-income earners could have access to buy a home.

If you want to write questions and you want to bring dixers here and you want to ask questions about cost of living, I am happy—and I know our ministers are happy—to answer questions about bill relief and about cost of living and housing and closing the loopholes and wages, because our government is the only government that has taken this to task. The opposition can continue with their nasty politics and rhetoric, but we will continue delivering for Australians.

The best form of cost-of-living relief is a secure job—would you believe? It's amazing to hear today, and have it revealed in this place, that jobs in the salmon industry in Tasmania are not secure—not under this government, not in their dodgy relationship with the Australian Greens, that they try and deflect from and pretend doesn't occur and exist. It does. It was on display again today.

The Australian Labor government, the Albanese government, the once-upon-a-time friend of the worker, funded the Environmental Defenders Office to the tune of nearly $10 million. The EDO take legal action against businesses that are proposing projects that will create jobs across our country. They also engage in green lawfare against sustainable industries like the aquaculture industry. The Labor government gave $10 million to take the salmon industry down. It was astounding to have that revelation. Three complainants—the Australia Institute, closely linked to the Australian Labor Party; the Bob Brown Foundation, closely linked to the Greens; and the EDO, funded by the Labor government—are all saying that the salmon industry is not sustainable and, therefore, we are finding that Minister Plibersek is going through a process to shut this industry down.

Those opposite call this a scare campaign. Well, let's go. Let's take Senator Watt's invitation. We should all go to Strahan, maybe the week after we rise from this place, and we can talk to the salmon workers about exactly the position they've been put in by the Tasmanian Labor senate team, who talk about the cost of living but do nothing at all to secure jobs. Let me tell you about a bit of proof that points to this: the letter from the Prime Minister to the Premier, dated yesterday, 29 November, relating to this exact process that the government is going through to review the salmon industry and whether it should continue to operate on Macquarie Harbour. I'll be interested to know whether Senator Polley has seen this letter, dated yesterday. It talks about this process, and refers to the review, under the EPBC Act, of the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour, and then it starts talking about compensation packages. Why would we be talking about compensation packages for workers in a community in the west coast of Tasmania if there are no job losses at stake here.

To answer to my question, not one guarantee was given about the 400 jobs in that regional community—not one guarantee. We were just told we were scaremongering. Well, I put it to you, Deputy President, that this is exactly what's going to happen. The EDO will win their day. They'll succeed in shutting down this industry. And those opposite—particularly Tasmanian Labor senators—will deflect and say it was all the fault of the last government or someone else or somewhere else. In fact, in the copies of the letters I've got here from Minister Plibersek, they even blame John Howard for all of this, unbelievably. They refer to these laws having been put in place in the year 2000. Between then and now, of course, they have been in government and they have been custodians of what the laws look like in this land. It's a ridiculous argument, a silly claim and one that people in the west coast of Tasmania will not accept. They want a guarantee this Christmas that their jobs will be secure, and I don't think we should be in any way resiling from that.

The salmon industry in Tasmania is a proud and sustainable industry. Of course we should make sure that the environment is well-protected. The industry has invested heavily in measures to mitigate against oxygen levels being diminished in Macquarie Harbour, and that is a good thing. As I said at the time when this funding was announced, the government should back industry in to make sure that science comes to the fore here, not politics—not green lawfare. But instead of actually dealing with the issues here that relate to the problems and the plight that the workers in this industry face as a result of the Albanese Labor government bowing to the pressure of the Greens, which have not been addressed, the minister refused to go anywhere near a guarantee. They made quips about how many salmon workers they've met, and that sort of thing, flippantly refusing to answer questions around the future of this industry and doing what's right for the people that work in this industry.

I'll tell you what: with this letter here from the Prime Minister—and I'll be interested to know whether Senator Polley or any of the Tasmanian Labor senators are aware of it—I want to know how they refuse to say that there will be jobs lost. If they are going to do that, they must guarantee not a single job will be lost in western Tasmania in the salmon industry—this sustainable, science-based industry. And if they can't do that today, it is going to be a very gloomy Christmas for the 400 families on the west coast that depend on this, much in the same way it will be for the workers at Rosebery's MMG mine that Labor senators aren't standing up for. These are the problems they're doing nothing about. They're playing politics. It's a very sad day.

It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution in taking note of answers today because, as usual, the senator from Tasmania has misled the Senate. There is no terminology in this letter that has any reference at all to compensation. Again, the senator has come into this chamber and misled with the usual mistruths that he is spouting. He is again running a scare campaign. He's not interested in supporting any jobs on the west coast, because he wouldn't even know how to get to the west coast. He's Hobart-centric. That's what he is. Not one word in this letter mentions anything at all about compensation. Again, as usual, it's mistruths misleading this chamber. He's running a scare campaign and causing undue stress to the salmon workers. I can assure you that there is not one Tasmanian—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I have a point of order. I'd like to listen to this fine Tasmanian senator and her contribution, but I can't hear with the ridiculous number of interjections. Senator Duniam left the chamber and came back just to make interjections.

We're not having a debate. The minister has asked for a little bit of quiet so that he can listen to his colleague. It's not a debating point. I ask members on my left to be measured, although I do note that Senator Polley was more than capable of handling those interjections.

Can I say—through you, Deputy President—that what is really disappointing is that the good senators on that side of the chamber who represent Tasmania would cause undue stress to the salmon industry workers. He knows, quite frankly, that there isn't any senator from Tasmania, with the exception of your friends down in the corner, that doesn't support the salmon industry in Tasmania. He knows that very well. Again, it's just about misleading, causing a scare campaign and causing stress to workers. If he were really serious about supporting the industry and protecting jobs, he would be working with the government. That's what he would be doing. He would be working with the government.

But let's not leave this debate today without putting some other facts on the record. They're facts in relation to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which, again, the Liberals and the Nationals voted against in the other place. Let's also remind people that each and every measure that we as a government introduced to help households deal with the increase in cost-of-living pressures, which we acknowledge are happening in this country, they have voted against—some of them up to six times. I know it's part of the opposition's role to come in and try and criticise the responses that we've given to their questions. But, really, I think Senator Green hit the nail on the head when she said that we, in this place today, witnessed some of the best dorothy dixer questions to our ministers, which enabled our ministers to talk about the real benefits that we're bringing to the community.

We're actually an adult government. I'm quite surprised that those opposite would question the integrity of the government, when what we did in relation to the issue that was brought down by the High Court of this country was to follow the letter of the law. That's what we did, unlike those who created and wrote the legislation which was thrown out by the High Court of Australia. But, no—all we hear is the usual mantra of those opposite since they've been in opposition.

Look, I think you're going to have a lot of time to get used to being in opposition. But, when coming into this place and trying to rewrite history on so many different levels, as you do, you forget that the Australian people are much smarter, obviously, than you are. They see right through you. Don't think that they've forgotten about all the terrible things you did. It was part of your policy to keep wages low, when it was this Labor government who supported an increase to wages for some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. We've supported workers in the aged-care sector, which your government neglected for 10 years. That's without even going into the whole issue of aged care and the embarrassment that you should be feeling about the way you've treated older Australians in this country.

But let's just get the facts straight. We acknowledge that there is a cost-of-living crisis—we do. But, instead of working with us and supporting good legislation, what you do is to continue to vote against it. No wonder the Australian people keep telling me that Peter Dutton is not fit to be Prime Minister of this country.

I'll also take note of pretty much all of the questions. I'm not thinking about us rewriting history; I'm just trying to think about how the good senator is trying to rewrite the questions in question time that just happened now—in particular, the question from Senator Cadell. The senators on the other side, and Minister Watt, in their responses, didn't actually answer the questions of Senator Cadell. He wasn't asking questions about fire ants in Queensland. He was asking questions about fire ants in New South Wales. Not one single point of answer was addressed to fire ants in New South Wales—only to answering a question that wasn't asked about fire ants in Queensland. The issue is that three fire ant nests have now been located in South Murwillumbah, 13 kilometres south of the Queensland/New South Wales border in New South Wales. They're unable to actually understand the difference between a problem in Queensland and a problem in New South Wales and so unable to actually answer the question that was asked about a problem in New South Wales. As a senator for New South Wales, it is very important to me that the minister is actually able to answer a question about a problem in my home state.

But it's not a problem that impacts just my home state. The whole country has been put at risk of fire ants because this Labor government was, once again, too slow to act. The funding should have been committed back in July—not on 22 October, but back in July. Nothing, all the time—and also not understanding the difference between New South Wales and Queensland when answering a question, but that's another matter.

So, again, we understand that the Labor government doesn't understand the difference between a problem in New South Wales and a problem in Queensland. It also does not understand what a massive threat this is. To that end, the National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program Strategic Review estimated that at least $200 million to $300 million per year was required to deal with this massive problem. So what does this government do? It dallies, for a number of months, and then commits $268 million over four years, when you need $200 million to $300 million per year. So let's have a big think about that and what impact that is going to have on our communities. Unbelievable!

The next thing I'm going to talk about is the cost-of-living piece. I heard a couple of senators talking about how the coalition's done this and the coalition's done that, where we're not focused and how we haven't agreed to support legislation that would cut cost-of-living pressures. It was all very confusing to me, particularly when Senator Green said that the coalition 'hates cheaper medicines'.

The coalition doesn't hate cheaper medicines. What the coalition hates is using community pharmacies in this country to fund government policy, when this government is unable to create its own policies to cut the cost of medicines without harming local family community pharmacies. And most of those community pharmacies are owned by women. So this government would like female small-business owners to fund the cost of cheaper medicines in this country. That's what this government should be embarrassed about. That's what this government should be ashamed of, on top of the fact that it has been totally incapable of providing any meaningful policy to stop the pain for Australian families and Australian mortgage holders, who have faced 13 interest rate hikes. There has been zero impactful or meaningful policy change from this government to stop that.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

I asked the representing minister about a statement, an annual statement on climate change, that was delivered by Minister Bowen in the House today. We've just had this 12-monthly report. Minister Bowen gave quite a lengthy and fairly detailed speech but left out one key fact, which is that in the last 12 months emissions have gone up by 3.6 million tonnes. I would think that should have been the headline on an annual climate statement, but I can understand why the government wanted to bury that embarrassing fact.

I asked Senator Wong, in her capacity as representing Minister Bowen: given that emissions are going up, when are you going to stop approving new coal and gas? It is not rocket science that if you want to try to bring emissions down you need to stop approving things that will increase pollution and emissions. I'm afraid Minister Wong did not, in my opinion, answer my question. What she did tell the chamber was that Labor's targets were ambitious. Apparently, that's why it's hard to meet them. It's not because they keep approving coal and gas but because their targets are allegedly ambitious. I'd like to see some actual ambition out of this government—ambition that's based on science and what the scientists say we need to do to our emissions trajectory to keep us all safe and to protect our agricultural sector and nature.

We're told their targets are ambitious. Maybe it's hard to meet them because they keep approving new coal and gas. I asked why and was not able to get a response—or, rather, I was not given a response. Perhaps it's because of the inconvenient truth that the fossil fuel industry is not only very generous in political donations to both sides of politics but also very generous in the proffering of overpaid lobbying jobs when politicians leave this chamber or the other place. Maybe that's got something to do with it, but certainly Minister Wong didn't give us any hint of what's driving their lack of ambition.

I then asked about Minister Bowen's characterisation of the climate crisis as a national security crisis. We think that's right. It's perfectly clear that the climate crisis not only is threatening our way of life but will make our future less secure and heighten national security risks. I asked Minister Wong: given that you accept that the climate crisis is in fact a national security crisis, why are you making it worse by opening up new coal and gas? Spoiler alert—you might be sensing a bit of a theme here—we don't think that either big party should be opening up new coal and gas in a climate crisis, particularly not when they acknowledge that this is worsening the national threat to our nation and our region.

I lastly asked the minister about the really disappointing statement by Minister Bowen today when he ruled out supporting the Climate Change Authority's recommendation that the feds do something about not connecting new homes to gas, and that they help transition homes off their existing gas connections. That can cost a bit of money, and the feds should be kicking in to make that transition, in our opinion. I asked Minister Wong: why is the government, at every turn, propping up the gas industry, refusing to consider a very sensible recommendation by the Climate Change Authority which says: don't automatically connect new homes to gas; make sure they're on the grid, which ideally we can transition to a hundred per cent renewables as quickly as possible; don't lock in expensive fossil fuels that mean we are seeing household bills rise whilst the climate cooks. I do not understand why Minister Bowen refused to engage with that very sensible recommendation, and, I'm afraid, Minister Wong shed absolutely no light on why the government immediately ruled it out. We know that Victoria and the ACT have already moved to stop new builds having gas connections. That's the direction that the federal government should be assisting all the states and territories to go in.

We have an annual climate statement where emissions are going up, and we have a government which continues to approve new coal, oil and gas. There are 10 coal and gas projects on Minister Plibersek's desk, and they would create 10 times more pollution than what this government's emissions reductions targets would save! With every turn they're undermining their own climate policies by backing new coal and gas. Stop approving new coal and gas!

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:

Budget estimates 2022-23—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received—

Defence portfolio.

Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.

Budget estimates 2022-23 (Supplementary)—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Budget estimates 2023-24—Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee— Additional information received—

10 August to 20 October 2023—Attorney-General's portfolio. 6 September to 12 October 2023—Home Affairs portfolio.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report: report 13 of 2023.

On behalf of Senator Sterle, I present the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia—Northern Australia workforce development: first report. 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 government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security on its review of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report:

Review of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019

November 2023

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government take into account the decisions of the High Court, in current relevant cases related to the counter- terrorism legislative framework and any associated impacts on the Temporary Exclusion Order regime, including but not limited to the question of whether the issuing authority be retained as a power of the Minister or the Regime be amended so that a Temporary Exclusion Order may only be issued by a Court on application by the Minister. If there was a High Court decision that impacted the Regime that would require additional legislative changes the Committee recommends that such legislation be referred to the Committee for inquiry.

Response: The Government accepts this recommendation.

If the outcome of a High Court decision has implications for the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Order) Act 2019 (TEO Act), the Government will take this into account. If this necessitates legislative amendment, the Government agrees to refer any such legislation to the Committee for inquiry.

Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Counter- Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 remain as currently in force.

Response: The Government accepts this recommendation.

The intent of paragraph 10(2)(b) of the TEO Act is to provide for the making of a temporary exclusion order based on a consistent assessment of terrorism threats by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

The Government acknowledges that the Committee has made this recommendation, per paragraph 3.16 of its report, for the avoidance of doubt, noting that it stands in contrast to recommendation 12 of the Committee's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 (Advisory Report), tabled in April 2019, which recommended deletion of the provision from the bill.

Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 be amended so that an assessment made by ASIO under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Act, or the grounds upon which such an assessment was made, must be provided to the Minister.

Response: The Government accepts this recommendation.

As outlined by the submission of the Department of Home Affairs and ASIO, and as noted by the Committee in paragraph 3.18 of the report, security assessments relating to TEOs are already provided to the Minister as a matter of practice.

Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that, for the avoidance of doubt and to assist the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 be amended so that it is clear that procedural fairness is not intended to apply to ASIO's assessments under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Act.

This recommendation should be actioned in conjunction with the Office of the Inspector- General of Intelligence and Security to provide the clarity requested.

Response: The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Government agrees that action taken in response to this recommendation will necessarily involve the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Recommendation 5: The Committee notes that the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 expressly provides that service of Return Permits must be effected by personal service. However, in the event that personal service is not possible because it is not safe or practicable, the Committee recommends that the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 be amended so that return permits can be served via alternative means (including email or text message).

Further, the Committee recommends that service of a return permit on the individual may be made in person upon their arrival into Australia where all other means (including email and text) have been exhausted.

Any such amending language must take into account the offence provision in section 9 of the Act and must make clear the circumstances in which a person may legally convey a person to Australia where a TEO is in place and a return permit has not been served, but it is known that one will be lawfully served on the individual upon their arrival into Australia.

Response: The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government continually reviews Australia's national security laws and capabilities to ensure they remain fit for purpose. Current service requirements have been effective in all cases to date (as noted by the Committee in paragraph 3.26 of its report), and any potential changes to the current service requirements would need to fully consider the legal and operational implications.

Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that section 29(1)(cc) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended so that if the Committee resolves to do so—it may commence, three years following the tabling of this report, a review of the Counter Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019.

Response: The Government accepts this recommendation.

I present the final report of the Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia, together with accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

It has been a privilege to be the chair of this landmark select committee inquiry into dental services in Australia.

I would like to begin by thanking the thousands of people who participated in this landmark inquiry. What we have heard, thanks to your advocacy, is that the oral healthcare system in Australia is undeniably a system in decay. Undeniably, colleagues, we have a system in decay.

Thousands of people took the time to share with us their experiences. There are some key themes that are undeniable: dental care in this country is too expensive; people are waiting too long to access public dental care, if they're eligible at all; and we must do more to support our oral healthcare workforce.

We, as a committee, conducted a survey: 17,000 people took the time to reply, the largest committee survey in the history of the Senate. It showed that 97 per cent of the community supports the Australian government making more dental services available for free.

This committee has held hearings across the country from Perth to Brisbane, Canberra and Launceston. I'd like to thank all those who submitted and appeared at the hearings. I would also like to thank the fabulous, dedicated secretariat team, who supported this inquiry to be as robust and collaborative as any Senate inquiry I have ever participated in. I would like to thank my fabulous team for their incredible work in supporting me to participate in and chair this inquiry. And I would like to extend my personal thanks to Senator Askew, Senator Marielle Smith, Senator Cadell and the Deputy Chair, Senator Payman, for their tireless work in creating this significant report.

The stories I have heard over the past eight months will stay with me forever. We have heard that people are choosing between their rent, eating three meals a day and getting access to oral health care.

We have heard stories—harrowing, moving, inspiring and distressing stories. They are of the type that truly moves you as somebody elected to represent their community to put all your effort and energy into making sure that this place genuinely provides solutions to the challenges and problems facing our community members.

I share with you now just one story. It's a story passed to us by Dr Stormon, who gave an electric toothbrush to a grade 2 kid. She shared in her evidence to the committee:

I gave it to him, and the next day I excitedly went to him and said, 'How did you go with your Spider-Man toothbrush?' And he said, 'I gave it to my younger brother, because my teeth are rotten but he has a chance.'

This system is failing children. It is failing disabled people. It is failing First Nations people. It is failing seniors. It is failing everyone—everyone. The number of people, including children, who are having all of their teeth removed in this country is unacceptable. The number of people living with chronic toothache out of fear of the price tag of having it addressed is unacceptable. The number of people who are ending up in our hospitals, including in ICU, with the consequences of untreated, entirely preventable diseases because they cannot access dental care in this country in 2023 is unacceptable.

It is beyond time that our governments get to work and bring the mouth back into the body.

Hope

This inquiry has shone a light on many incredible professionals who were going above and beyond to fill the gaps where the state and territory governments are failing people.

One of those organisations that I'd like to acknowledge the work of is the Kimberley Dental Team. They continue year in, year out to provide services to people across the Kimberley. It's a difficult challenge made even more difficult by the lack of secure funding provided by governments.

Recommendations

I am incredibly proud of this report. I am incredibly proud that it has a clear call to action:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government works with the states and territories to achieve universal access to dental and oral health care, which expands coverage under Medicare or a similar scheme for essential oral health care, over time, in stages.

Universal access to dental care, through Medicare or a similar scheme, we have to get this done.

The immediate question that confronts us now is: how do we get there?

Well, the inquiry charts a pathway for that too. Recommendation 13 is:

… that the Australian Government considers the establishment of a Seniors Dental Benefit Scheme.

It is beyond time for this recommendation to be implemented, as it was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Recommendation 22 is:

… that the Australian Government develops a plan and timeline to expand access to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule to all children, over time, initially targeting better access for disadvantaged and vulnerable children.

Under the current arrangement, many children are not able to access the child dental benefits scheme or school based dental programs.

The single biggest cause of avoidable hospitalisation in the Northern Territory is children being admitted under the age of 17 to have a general anaesthetic. Why? Because they need to have all of their teeth removed. It's usually under the age of five years. That is the single biggest cause of hospitalisations which are preventable in the entire Northern Territory.

Disability and dental

One of the communities left behind by the profit-driven oral healthcare system is, of course, disabled people. There are only 26 specialist dentists in the entirety of Australia. The ACT, where we are now, does not have one single specialist dentist. That is not okay. Tasmania doesn't have a single specialist dentist. That is not okay.

Expanding scope of practice

Lastly, one of the things raised by this inquiry is the need for the government to better support our workforce. We need to improve remuneration and conditions for dentists and oral health practitioners practising in the public sector, and we need to increase the size and scope of oral health therapist workforces and ensure that all practitioners are supported to work to their full scope of practice. To get these reforms done, we need a chief dental and oral health officer and to establish a dental and oral health space within the Department of Health and Aged Care to coordinate these national reforms. I'm proud that this is a recommendation which the committee has made.

Close

Beyond all else, we need to get the mouth back into the body and to get oral health care into Medicare and recognise it as the urgent cost-of-living issue that it is. As mortgages are on the up, as rents are on the up, as food prices are on the up, people cannot afford the average $230 charge for a dentist appointment in Perth. People simply don't have that kind of money.

I commend this report to the Senate for its detailed consideration. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present the report of the Economics References Committee on the influence of international digital platforms, together with an accompanying document. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The context for this inquiry was that the ACCC has been doing a large body of work in relation to digital platforms under this government and the last. This is a very slow but important body of work, and so the Senate, in its wisdom, decided to establish an inquiry to look at these matters. I thank the Senate very much for giving us the opportunity to do this important inquiry. At the outset, I give my thanks to Senator Walsh, the deputy chair, for the way that this process has been conducted; to all the members of the secretariat; and to all the other senators that participated.

The basic point to come out of this inquiry is that large tech companies are very lightly regulated in this country. Compared to a bank or a telecommunications company, they face virtually no regulatory burden. That is a major problem because, in our society today, we have a situation where big tech companies know more about us and have more power and influence over our society than, I would say, any monopolist has had in history. They make the robber barons look like they are not very powerful people at all, in a historical context.

Of course, it's difficult to try and work out what to do here because we're talking about global companies operating across multiple jurisdictions that have huge cultural power and have been very successful at evading regulation—and, of course, that is part of their approach. So, rather than setting out 20 or 30 unreadable recommendations, this committee has proposed just eight. We start off with a recommendation that deals with the significant fragmentation of our approach here in this country. We basically have four institutions—the OAIC, the ACCC, the eSafety Commissioner and ACMA—that have some jurisdiction in relation to digital platforms. These are not organisations that are working together on the big issues of the day, certainly not in any public way. We had to FOI the meetings of the so-called DP-Reg organisation, which is a group of people from these agencies that get together to talk about issues in order to work out what was going on from a coordination sense.

Our first recommendation is that we believe that the country would be well served by having a proper consolidation of these regulators so that they are able to deal with the multifaceted challenges that the big platforms pose. This committee was not a rerun of the social media inquiry or other inquiries. It looked at competitive restraints and it looked at where there were problems where people were being exposed to organisations that had too much power and were not sufficiently regulated in any form.

The next set of recommendations went to the bundling of products and services. There were significant submissions to the committee received that large tech organisations would bundle payment services alongside products in order to evade competition and in order to lock down their very strong monopoly position. Because, of course, in a practical sense, if you think about this, if you control the hardware of a phone or a physical platform like an iPad and you control the operating system and the software and the apps, you have a vertical integration which is unique and it allows you to have a completely unfair market bargaining position. So we have sought to address that issue in that recommendation of unbundling.

One of the features of banks and telecommunications organisations in this country is that they do face a high regulatory burden. One of the other processes we are undertaking in this committee is an inquiry into the corporate regulator ASIC, which has not been a strong regulator. Although the parliament has enacted very strong laws, we have not seen large corporations face the full force of the law and that has caused great anguish in our community. But having said that, the starting point is a sound point that they do face a high regulatory burden. One thing that a bank and a telco must have is mandatory dispute resolution. They must provide that as part of their service offering.

Another thing which occurs in other parts of our economy is that consumers can access a small claims tribunal. These are the most powerful and pervasive companies in the history of capitalism; therefore, we have recommended that there be dispute resolution and we recommended that there be a small claims tribunal. These are very reasonable recommendations.

When we were in government, I chaired the inquiry into the media bargaining code and I well remember the threats that were made by Google and Facebook. Google was going to leave Australia and leave billions of dollars of advertising revenue on the table, and Facebook was going to turn off all their community pages. We held the line as a parliament and we were able to win the day on that. But these big tech companies, in my estimation, will do anything to evade regulation. But if we're able to tilt the scales in favour of the typical Australian by giving them access to mandatory dispute resolution and a tribunal, it would make a big difference when there is a problem with these big tech organisations.

Finally, we were able to meet with the Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, who was able to give us some very interesting information based on her insider status at Facebook. We have recommended that there be transparency measures which apply to these companies based on a certain turnover. They would have to disclose the information relating to their algorithms. They would have to disclose how they target advertising, what sort of information they are collecting on people and how they are using it. I think these are pivotal recommendations.

We also recommended a right under Australian law that would allow people to delete their data. They should be able to delete their data from a digital platform if they so wish, provided that that does not create any foreseeable law enforcement issue. The last recommendation we made was in relation to the utilisation of children's data. We recommended a special code for the collection and use of children's data, which could be, as with media bargaining, a bill of this parliament. This would protect children who, I believe, are the most vulnerable to the size and the scope of these organisations.

In essence, the committee has conducted a very lengthy review. It has fundamentally recommended that these organisations be regulated as if they are utilities. I think this is sound. I think that these are achievable things that we should do. The basic principle here is that, if the organisations want to do business in Australia, we shouldn't feel as if we cannot apply a reasonable standard of regulation to them. They will always resist it, but it is achievable. We have the precedent in relation to media bargaining. That has now caused a regulatory contagion, and other jurisdictions now have similar laws to Australia's in relation to media bargaining. We should do the same as we have done on media bargaining and on esafety and go further to regulate these organisations as if they are utilities. If we don't do this, I believe they will be even further out of control in future and even harder to rein in.

I want to again thank the secretariat and Senator Walsh, in particular, for the way in which this inquiry was conducted.

I rise to take note of the report on the committee's inquiry into the influence of international digital platforms. I want to quickly note and support Senator Bragg's mention of the collegiality on this inquiry. I look forward to continued bipartisanship across the parliament as we all continue to progress reforms in this really critical area. It is a critical area because the influence of digital platforms is truly massive. Every day, millions of us are messaging a friend, running businesses through platforms and interacting in some way with these platforms. While the opportunities and impacts that platforms have on the economy are significant and are welcomed, the challenges presenting to users and governments are also significant. Platforms have significant market power and control over consumer experiences online.

It was clear in this inquiry—as it was in the earlier inquiry into foreign interference through social media, for which I was deputy chair—that the platforms need to do a lot more. They need to do a lot more to be transparent about their practices, they need to do a lot more to be accountable to the community and they need to do a lot more to be accountable and transparent to the community through the parliament as well. We all agree that these platforms need to do better and need to be more transparent in meeting community expectations. We also agree that regulation is required.

This inquiry, which was chaired by Senator Bragg, looked at many of these issues. We also had the opportunity to look at how government is responding to them. I'd like to thank my committee colleague Senator Jana Stewart, who has a longstanding interest in the impact of digital platforms on our gig economy workers—people like the delivery drivers who, we know, are too often putting their lives on the line every day at work and the commercial passenger vehicle drivers that we all rely on and whose livelihoods depend on the conduct of these platforms. I do look forward to this place closing the loopholes to better protect these workers who are dependent for their livelihood on how big platforms operate and how big platforms treat them.

The rights of consumers and improving market competition are at the heart of the government's response to addressing the influence of digital platforms. Like the chair, Senator Bragg, I want to recognise the work of the ACCC, who have since 2019 been thoroughly and methodically inquiring into digital platforms and their services. It's their work and their recommendations which have led to a great deal of reform by the government, and it's their work which submitters also point to as leading the way for future directions. Government responses include a ban on unfair contract terms, which came into effect this month, and progressing options on unfair trading practices. The government is committed to delivering reforms set out in the ACCC's interim report 5, on regulatory reform options.

Importantly, the work of modernising the Privacy Act, another recommendation of the ACCC's digital platform inquiry, is now underway. These much-needed reforms will increase individuals' rights to their data. It will improve their privacy, including a right to delete, and it will increase transparency. The government will also develop a children's online privacy code, a much-needed reform to keep children safe. To conclude, I again thank the chair, the committee, the submitters and the secretariat for this inquiry and the report.

I rise to speak to this report, Influence of international digital platforms. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the chair in pulling this together. It's been a timely review. It's interesting to see this report land in the same week that we've seen the seventh interim report from the ACCC. Both raise very significant and legitimate concerns, particularly about the market power of a handful of platforms that control an increasing part of our life.

The first two recommendations in this committee report should be taken on seriously by this parliament. The first is to have a coherent single regulator. You won't have all the expertise in one place, but somebody, some agency, needs to have the power and the critical mass to take on these huge global players. At the moment, literally trying to find who's responsible for any particular mischief that these platforms are undertaking can be half the struggle, let alone then trying to find a valid regulatory basis upon which to act. As these platforms grow, and as their influence over our lives grows, the need for us to push back and have public interest regulation grows with it. We've seen Europe taking really significant steps in trying to limit market power and put in transparency for these big platforms. If we do nothing else, we should copy what Europe does. It has an effective set of regulations and is a very good starting point for addressing transparency and market power.

When you read this committee report, together with the ACCC report, you realise what a problem we have. The ACCC's most recent report looked at five big platforms. It looked at Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft—of course, Alphabet is Google and Meta is Facebook. The ACCC said that the increasing bundling of services by these big platforms, whether it's artificial intelligence or immersive technologies, those voice assistants that we all use, health and fitness apps, media streaming, linking into our home devices, gaming, our cloud services—those suites of services that we're increasingly using for our daily lives—are all being bundled up in a single platform. That's a problem that was identified in this committee report with this recommendation that I read, and the Greens read, as being a clear direction to this parliament to put some legislation in to unbundle these services.

As both reports make clear, the bundling of services also is a major problem for any kind of competitive market to operation. That bundling happen in a number of different ways. One way in which bundling can be deeply uncompetitive is where there may be a family plan. Someone may have an iCloud plan; a parent buys an iCloud plan for the family, which is used as core data photo storage service for the whole family. Then, when members of that family begin to get economic independence, they are still locked into an iCloud related service and a bundle of services that might be provided out of Apple, or whichever platform has the cloud service that they had as a kid. We see, as well, this bundling of voice assistants linking to our smart devices at home. It's getting to the point where, if you want to pull out of your primary platform, you've got a next-to-impossible task not only of pulling out of, say, your phone provider or pulling away from your internet provider but also of unbundling all of your home devices, unbundling your voice assistant and maybe picking a different entertainment app.

The ACCC has said very clearly that these big market players have a plan. Their plan is to immerse your life in this bundle of services and make it next to impossible for you to choose a competitor. It also said that these services are actively hunting for any emerging competitor and that, as an emerging competitor gets any kind of viable business going, the services are literally sucking them up, purchasing them and subsuming them in these large platforms. Is that the future we want? Do we want a future where huge global platforms—at the moment there are maybe five, but maybe in the future it will be three or two—control so many aspects of our lives? Obviously, that's a dystopian future that we should be pushing against, but it's the future that will happen unless we recognise the need for public interest regulation.

I think those are the two critical key recommendations from this report. Let's have a well-empowered, single—but not sole—regulator with primary responsibility and the statutory powers to force some of these platforms to unbundle and to deliver public interest regulation in this space. Let's do that. And let's recognise that the bundling of services is actually a critical threat not just to market operation in the space but increasingly to the sharing of ideas to the democratic marketplace. Unless we confront that sooner rather than later, we're going to have the next-to-impossible task of unpicking people's lives as they become increasingly immersed in a single platform with all the bells and whistles that are now wrapped around those platforms. I don't want to see a future Australia where what you see, what opinions you get and who you talk to is moderated by a single global corporate entity. I don't want that. The Greens don't want that. I don't think the Acting Deputy President Polley wants that, if I can tell from looking across the chamber! I think that may be something that unites this chamber, in a very strange and peculiar way! But that's the risk, unless we confront that sooner rather than later.

I'll finish with this. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, here. There are unique things about the Australian market. But what we've seen Europe do with those two critical acts that have passed in the last couple of years about transparency, the market and the way in which these large online markets operate in Europe is an excellent starting point for us. We should do that. We should urgently implement privacy reforms that can't wallow for another 12 months. And we should take seriously what both this committee and the ACCC have said to us, which is that these massive global corporate interests should not rule our democracy and should not rule our lives. We have an obligation for public interest regulation in this space. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the committee on its inquiry into the rights of women and children and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As the Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report The pursuit of equality: inquiry into the rights of women and children.

The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in September 2022, with broad-ranging terms of reference that enabled the committee to explore various issues affecting women and children globally today. We particularly focused on emerging issues since COVID and the advent of war and conflict in many parts of the world.

During the process, the committee received 49 submissions and conducted nine public hearings. Input came from an incredibly diverse range of stakeholders, including government bodies, humanitarian organisations and representatives from women and children's rights groups, both nationally and internationally.

Sadly, but very consistently, almost every participant in the inquiry conveyed the same message to the committee over and over again: the rights of women and children worldwide are in steady decline.

This decline is evident across so many different metrics, encompassing rates of violence, exploitation and abuse directed at women and children. As we know, we are not immune from those statistics here in Australia. A convergence of factors, including the reverberations of COVID-19, the impact of climate change and persistent conflicts, has contributed to this sad regression in the human rights of women and children, which have been fought so hard for by so many, including Australia, for so long.

Additionally, elements such as escalating inequality and opposition from nation-states unfriendly to the international rights agenda have further complicated the situation and made a bad situation worse.

Despite decades of endeavours to improve the rights of women and children, the international community continues to grapple with these challenges. Sadly, we're not seeing much evidence of any significant progress as yet. Without decisive and prompt action, numerous women and children are at risk of enduring lives marked by greater abuse, neglect, violence, forced labour, slavery and trafficking.

I believe, and the committee believes, that it is imperative for Australia to take a leadership role globally to start countering these negative trends.

This report puts forward 10 very sensible recommendations which the committee hopes will assist the Australian government, and our community more widely, to address the broader situation of women and children and the issues that impact them and to further heighten these things in terms of focus and action in Australia's foreign policy.

The key recommendations include:

A particular long-term passion and engagement of mine is the issue of child trafficking, particularly the issue of the eight million children who are trafficked into so-called orphanages. Most of these children are not orphans. They have been trafficked into these facilities for kind-hearted Australians and people from many other nations to support.

I'm very pleased that in this report the committee has made a series of recommendations to combat this increasing phenomenon. These recommendations include adopting a whole-of-government stance, condemning orphanage trafficking, creating stronger travel guidance materials and collaborating with multinational partners to eliminate this issue. The recommendations also stress the need for regulation by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to monitor institutions involved in orphan trafficking, and they propose the creation of a specific criminal offence, targeting such activities.

Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard harrowing evidence from victims of gender-specific violence, many of whom will live with lifelong scars and receive little or no support to recover as much as they can from this trauma. On behalf of the committee, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all of these brave individuals from all over the world who have shared their stories not only of great suffering but also of great resilience. I thank all of the stakeholders who put so much thought and effort and evidence into this inquiry.

I thank all of the committee staff who have worked on this inquiry over the last 12 months. It has not always been an easy committee to participate in and to support, from a secretariat perspective, having to listen time and time again to such trauma and to the unbelievable amount of suffering of so many women and children globally. Finally, I also thank the subcommittee chair, the member for Calwell, Ms Maria Vamvakinou, for her leadership, passion and commitment in this area.

I commend this report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's Northern Australia workforce development:first report. I want to say how privileged and proud I am to be a member of this committee. I've only just been appointed to it in the last six months, sadly because of Senator Dodson moving aside, hanging up his boots and having his well-earned rest. I'm rapt to be part of it because—it's not a secret—I made my living in the north of Western Australia, and I have a passion for the north of WA especially.

I joined the committee, and we toured under the fine guidance, may I say, of Ms Scrymgour. She is a magnificent chair, and she's backed up by Mr Entsch from northern Queensland. It's a privilege to work with her. I joined in the Western Australian side because we were looking at workforce development through WA. We went up to the Dampier Peninsula, and we met with TOs and Indigenous corporations. Then we had public hearings in Broome, where we heard from the shire's council, indigenous organisations, training and employment organisations and the likes. We had planned to go to Fitzroy Crossing. Unfortunately, on the morning we rocked into Fitzroy, there was some real sorry business, so out of due respect we cancelled that day. We'll go back to Fitzroy. Then we went on to Kununurra and met with the same.

The biggest problem—I'll talk for Western Australia, and I don't think it's any different in the Northern Territory and in Queensland, and it's not just in Indigenous remote communities but also in the big provinces in WA—is the serious lack of two things. One is staff. And I don't know which comes first—the egg or the chicken or whatever—but there's a serious lack of housing as well. We know that throughout Australia, particularly in my home state of WA, housing is 'wow-wee'. Trying to get a rental property is near-on impossible, and trying to get a builder who will finish a house without going broke is a good challenge too in WA. We can't get workers to WA, up to the top end, because we haven't got the housing. I won't speak for Queensland and the Northern Territory, but I think I'm on safe ground there.

I want to touch on several of the recommendations that were developed and fully endorsed and supported by the committee yesterday or the day before—time flies in here, but it was fun anyway. There are a couple of the recommendations I'd like to read out. One is recommendation 3:

The committee recommends the Australian Government, in conjunction with the state and territory governments for Northern Australia, consider ways to provide incentives for appropriate modular homes to be built to address the immediate housing crisis in Northern Australia.

This is an absolute no-brainer. This is not being political. We've had this problem for years and years. It doesn't matter what colour government we've had in; we have had serious lack of housing in the top end. I remember the big multi-billion-dollar projects of RIHP and SIHIP, depending on which state you were in. One was regional Indigenous housing investment, and one was strategic. But even when we did start building the homes, the sad part was that no-one thought to go and consult with the inhabitants, those who would be living in the homes. It was damn embarrassing.

I'll tell you what else was embarrassing: everywhere you went in the top end of WA, along the peninsula in particular, there weren't local faces working on them. The numberplates were predominantly from Queensland. There were a couple of token Aboriginal faces on some jobs—and it's not as though we haven't got Aboriginal plumbers and builders; we've got those people up in the Kimberley—but how does that enhance and improve training and future employment opportunities for our local Australians, our First Nations people? It just goes without saying.

Recommendation 4 said:

The committee recommends the Australian Government develop a Northern Australia focused Regional Infrastructure Strategy with state, territory and local governments. This Strategy should focus, as a matter of priority, on how to address skilled labour shortages, ensure there is a sustainable pipeline of infrastructure, and on building the housing and construction industry in regional areas.

Another one said:

The committee recommends the Australian Government, in conjunction with states and territories, explore options for a Regional Infrastructure Fund—or similar mechanism. Such a fund could be contributed too by all levels of government, to focus on supporting local employment in social, residential, commercial and civil construction projects. This fund would focus more broadly on social infrastructure differing from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.

And just to round it off, because I know other senators want to move on to other reports, it's just seriously—I don't know if it's a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'. It really does pain you when you travel through the north, particularly with what's happened in one of my favourite parts of Australia, Fitzroy Crossing, right in the middle of the Kimberley there. We saw the bridge go out and we saw that devastation where we lost 96 or 97 homes. For Australians who aren't living there or don't have anything to do with remote communities, we're not talking about homes that house two or three people. We are talking about homes that house so many more people because there's such a shortage. When you see that lack of housing, you're seeing 10 or 15 people trying to live under the same roof—and those houses are gone. How do I know? Because I take all the beds up there that have been donated.

Even now, despite the magnificent job that has been done by the federal and state governments and by the construction company in Western Australia to get that bridge up and reopened, to open up our pipeline between Perth and the Northern Territory—with the greatest respect, we still haven't been able to build one house yet. And that's not to blame anyone. We had to get the bridge open. We've got temporary housing now, which is fantastic. We've seen that coming through the communities and now people can get back on country. Kids can get back with grandparents and families can reunite.

From what I've seen of this committee, it's very collegiate. There are no arguments. The majority of the people on that committee—the majority, not all of us—are based in northern Australia, but I've been running through the north of Western Australia since the late seventies. It is great to be part of it. I really just want to take this opportunity to say I look forward to continuing my work with Ms Scrymgour and the rest of the committee. Let's roll our sleeves up. We've got a heck of a lot more to do before we even start touching on the social issues. I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On Tuesday, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories report was tabled by Labor Whip Senator Urquhart, titled Restoring democracy: report of the inquiry into local governance on Norfolk Island, dated November 2023. Like Senator Shoebridge, I neglected to speak to it. I seek leave to speak to that report.

Leave is granted.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I rise to speak on the report Concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports. I want to thank Senator Colbeck and the government and opposition whips for keeping this item on the Notice Paper, to let me speak on the report of this important, groundbreaking inquiry into sports related concussions and their long-term ramifications.

People don't think concussion is a big deal, but it is a serious neurological injury, and, like any other injured part, the brain needs time to rest and heal after a knock. Symptoms of concussions include headaches, confusion, nausea, anger, impulsivity and rage. Repeated knocks can lead to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, which is a massive loss of brain function. Noongar man Graham Farmer was one of the greatest players in AFL history—also, the first AFL player diagnosed with CTE. It is a progressive and devastating form of dementia and, without proper care, it can wreak havoc on people's lives and families.

Not getting a diagnosis, or getting a wrong diagnosis, can lead to mismanagement, where concussion is treated like a mental health issue and proper care is delayed for years. Many sporting organisations and industry-funded researchers have downplayed this for decades, including denying the existence of CTE and delaying proper recognition of the debilitating impacts of concussion.

I want to thank those players and families who came forward to courageously share their personal stories and losses. My heart broke at hearing your stories. I want to thank Lydia Pingel from AFLW, a 30-year-old with dementia, just from playing footie; Peter 'Wombat' Maguire; Anita Frawley, the wife of Danny Frawley, a St Kilda star; Dr Rowena Mobbs, one of the only neurologists in the country diagnosing and treating CTE; and Associate Professor Melanie Bussey, for all her work. There are many more names, and I am grateful to all those who shared their stories and have advocated around the impacts of concussion.

This inquiry report, including my additional comments, made some important recommendations, and these included: national guidelines for sport, to assist diagnosis and treatment of CTE; more research, with clear guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest; and better understanding and public awareness, particularly at community level, to keep our children safe on the fields. Government and national sporting organisations need to take the lead, by keeping proper records and sharing data, having consistent and binding return-to-play protocols, and contributing funding to an independent national sports research body.

Concussions are incredibly common, yet we still have no idea how big the problem is. Concussions are everywhere—and not just in sports. So many women and victim-survivors—including me—in this country, have had repetitive head knocks from abusive partners. Too many women that I know, black and white, walk around with undiagnosed CTE as a result of being beaten by their partners over decades. And there is absolutely no support for them out there. There is a silent epidemic of undiagnosed and untreated concussions, and often victim-survivors develop migraines and other conditions that can be easily treated.

We must continue to advocate for the recommendations of this inquiry to be implemented, and for greater awareness and work on addressing the impacts of concussion and head trauma. We owe it to all those who have lost their lives, the lives of their loved ones or the ability to live their lives to the fullest.

I thank everybody involved in that inquiry. It was an incredible eye-opener for me, and I learnt so much about the effects of repetitive head trauma. For me they went from knocks on the netball court, as an A-grade netballer, to knocks from abusive partners. I can't imagine how many undiagnosed people we have out there in our communities.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to New Caledonia and Fiji, which took place from 20 August to 1 September 2023.

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

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023

Participating member: Senator Rice

Economics Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Shoebridge to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the Digital ID Bill 2023 and a related bill

Participating member: Senator McKim

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Shoebridge to replace Senator Steele-John for the committee's inquiries into—

the provisions of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and a related bill

the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023

the provisions of the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023

Participating member: Senator Steele-John

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Participating member: Senator Shoebridge

Question agreed to.

by leave—On behalf of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen, I table to the parliament the Annual climate change statement to parliament 2023.

by leave—I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning higher education statistics, infrastructure review, Hunter class frigates and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

by leave—I rise to take note of the documents produced in relation to the Hunter class frigates. A few short weeks ago, we had a summary document presented to a committee of this parliament from the Secretary of the Department of Defence in relation to Defence's review of the procurement process for the Hunter frigates project. I remind senators that the Hunter frigates project is the single-largest procurement project that the Commonwealth has currently entered into. It's a $45 billion project.

The summary of the review that was provided by Secretary Moriarty was about six pages in length, and it was a shocking read. It was shocking to see how risk and value for money weren't analysed in the procurement process. It was an extraordinary document insofar as Secretary Moriarty, who oversaw the second half of that process, failed to accept any personal responsibility for extraordinary institutional failings. Having read that summary by the current secretary, on behalf of my party, the Greens, I put in this OPD to require the production of the full review—not the summary review by the secretary but the full review—of Defence's procurement of the Hunter class frigates.

I just want to put on record that the minister has been I think quite frank in the response. The OPD was earlier this week and this was produced today in accordance with the order made by the Senate. There are some redactions in relation to security. Having had the document for only a few short minutes before it was presented to the chamber, I have done an initial review of it. The initial review of this document makes it very clear that the summary review provided by the Defence secretary was a heavily sanitised version of the review.

This review was undertaken by two highly-paid consultants, and at least one of whom is a former senior ranking member of the ADF. This review cost more than $½ million, but in the context of a $45 billion project perhaps Defence didn't even notice that. This review has scathing findings of what has gone wrong. Any secretary that accepted responsibility for what happened on their watch, on receipt of this document, would not have provided a sanitised summary to his minister and this parliament. Any secretary who was responsible for a project like this should have simply resigned. That's what Secretary Moriarty should have done and if he didn't resign then the minister should have sacked him after this.

This is an extraordinary indictment of the procurement process run by Secretary Moriarty. Don't take my word for it. Here's what the team said:

Across the planning, shortlisting and down-select stages of the HCF procurement, the Review Team found shortfalls that undermined the ability of Defence to achieve value for money during the course of the HCF procurement and to comply with the PGPA Act, the CPRs and the DPPM (including mandatory requirements).

I'll just stop there. The defence review failed to comply with the mandatory Commonwealth procurement rules, failed to comply with mandatory federal legislation on procurement and failed to comply with Defence's own procurement plan. It has made the Australian government enter into a $45 billion program for a critical part of defence procurement which is already years delayed and, as pretty much any independent analysis says, will not provide the kind of security outcome that was required in the procurement process.

Just stopping there this review is damning, but it goes on and says:

Ultimately, these shortfalls resulted in recommendations to government that could not be adequately traced to the evaluation of tenders conducted by the formally designated Tender Evaluation Organisation (TEO) in accordance with promulgated tender documentation.

So you can't link the recommendation to the tender evaluation. It's extraordinary. Then it says:

Moreover, the resulting recommendations could not be traced to a comparative assessment and ranking of tenders to determine which one best supported the achievement of the HCF project objectives (as advised to tenderers) on a value for money basis.

There was no effective comparative for value for money. It goes on:

The Review Team also found that advice to government failed to convey material outcomes of the tendering process, which was appropriately planned and conducted but for completing a comparative evaluation and ranking of the tenders.

So the secretary misled his minister. The secretary failed to give full advice to his minister and that led to the government entering into a $45 billion procurement project without a proper ranking of tenders and without full advice. It goes on. The review also found:

… there was no consistent expression of the goals and purpose of the HCF procurement from commencement of the procurement in June 2014 up until first pass—

They didn't even know what they were assessing. It says:

Planning for the procurement fell into a process of disjointed advice to government driven by competing needs rather than deliberate steps to maintain clear, coherent goals and formulate a procurement method commensurate with the scale, scope and risk of the procurement.

Did I mention that the person in charge of this is still the secretary earning $900,000 a year, having led the Australian public into a $45 billion procurement which failed on pretty much every possible basis? He's still getting paid—what?—$3,000 a day, having done this. How is this the case? The review goes on:

Notwithstanding well-founded advice to government at initial pass in June 2014, advice to government following initial pass—

and this is where Secretary Moriarty was responsible throughout—

generated growing incompatibility between project objectives themselves, and with the procurement method. Defence did not appear to recognise the impact these incompatibilities would have on the ability to achieve value for money.

How can you let the person who did this on a $45 billion procurement project be in charge of Defence while you're planning to spend $368 billion or more on nuclear submarines? What does it take to get sacked from the Department of Defence and the ADF, if not this? The review goes on:

The Review Team found Defence did not adequately recognise that the shortlisting of alternatives for the HCF was part of the formal HCF procurement process—

You can't make this up! It continues:

The Review Team found that Defence departed from the agreed process during the shortlisting of alternatives, originally intended to be logical and demonstrate rigour. This led to shortfalls in terms of the extent of reasonable enquiries made to facilitate accountable and transparent decision making; the level of diligence, fairness and consistency applied during shortlisting considerations; and the overall effectiveness of this stage of the procurement.

So, apart from diligence, fairness and consistency, what else is there that you would expect? They failed on diligence, fairness and consistency. Then this is the icing on the cake:

An absence of formal documentation means that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the shortlisting activities and decision were commensurate with the scale, scope and risk of the HCF procurement.

How is he still the secretary? Where's the accountability? How many more billions need to be wasted before someone is held to account?

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Mr Donaldson is the fourth INSLM, and I table the review into the operation and effectiveness of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004.

In regard to the ministerial statement that was tabled in relation to the OPD on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps documents, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

It is disgraceful that the government has failed to provide these documents that have been requested by the Senate and are making a public interest immunity claim. The Albanese government knows that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terror group and they are a threat to Australians. Yet the government have done everything possible to block the IRGC from being listed as a terrorist organisation, despite the fact that we in the coalition have repeatedly offered bipartisan support for the legislation to be amended to enable a listing.

We know because of a freedom of information request—an FOI request from members of the community—that the Attorney-General's Department has these documents but today the government is blocking the release of them. It appears that, in January, the Attorney-General's Department was closely considering a listing of the IRGC. There is no reason for the Attorney-General's Department to be considering listing a group as a terrorist organisation unless they know they are involved in terrorism. We can see from the documents that this FOI revealed that the department was working on a listing, and then somebody in some other part of government came along at the last minute and put a stop to it. This government says that it can't act to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, but they are also refusing to release both the advice supporting that claim and the work that had been done on a listing before somebody came along and put a stop to it.

The very first thing this government should have started doing when somebody formed the opinion that the IRGC couldn't be listed is work on preparing legislative amendments so that the IRGC could be listed. That is something that we in the coalition have offered bipartisan support for if that offer ever comes forward. Yet, since they formed that opinion in January, we have been told by the Attorney-General's Department that no work whatsoever has been done on legislative amendments to enable the listing of the IRGC, nor have they been asked to do so by the Albanese government. So the position of this government is that there is a legal technicality stopping the listing of a terrorist group, yet it has done nothing to remove that technicality in 10 months and has no intention of removing that technicality. At every step, the Albanese government is trying to talk down the need for a terrorist listing of the IRGC, and they are hiding details about the IRGC from the public, even though their own argument is that they would do it if the legislation allowed it.

What the Senate has demanded is that the government produce the work that was being done back in January so that we can see how far they got, pick up that work and continue with it. The government has refused to produce it, by claiming somehow that it's not in the public interest to do so. These documents, which the government is refusing to release, will show the Senate and the public exactly what the Attorney-General's Department had got to in its consideration of listing the IRGC.

The ludicrous thing about this is that you can go online right now and read the statement of reasons for the listing of Hamas or Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. The Hamas statement of reasons states very clearly—indeed they all do—'This statement of reasons is based on publicly available information.' Like I said, that same statement is in every statement of reasons for every listed terrorist organisation, yet this government is claiming that the statement of reasons document developed which talks about the IRGC somehow cannot be released. It is saying it cannot release publicly available information its own department collated about the IRGC, which we know funds Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, groups that Australia already recognises as terrorist organisations. The government want to just keep saying, 'We can't do this. We can't do this. We can't do this,' rather than doing the responsible thing and joining with the rest of the Senate, the rest of this chamber, which clearly want to take action to enable a listing.

There is something very, very wrong with this government's determination not to list the IRGC as a terrorist group. Let's remember that there has been an overwhelming call from Iranian Australians over the last few months to list the IRGC as a terror group. But, once again, we see this Albanese government failing to act on a clear matter of public safety and national security—and, goodness me, haven't we spoken about that extensively in this place this week. The IRGC is the organisation that helps fund and train Hamas. It attempts to murder and kidnap critics of the regime. This is the organisation which, right now, at this very moment, is helping its proxies to launch rocket and drone attacks on the US—our biggest ally—in Iraq and Syria. At this very moment, they are helping their proxies to attack Israel.

There is no question: any support for or presence of the IRGC in Australia represents a clear threat to the safety of Australians. It is disgraceful that this government continues to block efforts to hold the IRGC accountable and list it as a terrorist organisation.

I rise to take note of the document regarding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Firstly, I would like to congratulate Senator Chandler for her advocacy on these matters. Senator Chandler is extremely well respected and highly regarded by the wonderful Iranian community in Queensland for her fierce advocacy in relation to these matters. I commend her for it. Secondly, I appeal to the government to reconsider its position in this regard. I have heard in Senate estimates and I understand the concerns raised about the complications of listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. But in all the circumstances, including the fact that the opposition stands ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary to navigate those issues, I appeal to the government to reconsider its position with respect to this.

I will put the message very, very simply. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be registered as a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. It is as simple as that. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organisation. It acts like a terrorist organisation, it supports other terrorist organisations and it should be given that status. Senator Chandler is right to continue to advocate these matters.

The Australian Iranian community is asking for action to be taken to consider the impact of the horrors which have been perpetrated on the Iranian people by the current regime and to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate recognise that the Albanese Government seeks to legislate that the objective of superannuation is to help people retire with dignity, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way;

(b) the Senate expresses that:

(i) foregoing tax receipts to promote superannuation as an estate planning tool is inconsistent with this objective,

(ii) offering generous tax discounts to individuals with high superannuation balances to make additional contributions is inconsistent with this objective, and

(iii) allowing super funds to spend the proceeds of members' money without transparency or accountability to those members is inconsistent with this objective; and

(c) because superannuation's objective is 'to help people retire with dignity...in an equitable and sustainable way', the cohort that Commonwealth superannuation expenditure should target is those who are most at risk of failing to accumulate sufficient savings, to allow them to retire with dignity.

Back in February this year the Prime Minister and the Treasurer held a conference announcing they would change the taxation of high-balance superannuation accounts. They said that Labor was planning to tax the earnings of superannuation accounts with balances above $3 million at 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent. They went to great lengths to say why this was necessary. This is how the Treasurer justified it:' We inherited $1 trillion of debt which was getting more and more expensive to service as interest rates went up. We had persistent and growing spending pressures in health, the NDIS, aged care and, of course, defence.' The Prime Minister said that they would strengthen the system by making it more sustainable. That was an interesting thing to say.

One thing the government and I agree on is that the tax deductions we give people regarding superannuation are expensive. When the bookshop gives an employee a discount of $10 off a $30 book, that discount costs the bookshop money. It's money they would have earned from an ordinary sale but did not. The books will show that they made a sale, but the tills will be short $10. It's as if you charged full price, sold the book and gave the customer a tenner for their troubles. That would show up in exactly the same way when you did your closing sums. Nobody would say that the 10 bucks you handed over was anything other than a cost to the business. Nobody can say the decision not to charge the full rate of tax on super is anything other than a cost to our tax receipts, either. I'm not saying that means these discounts are bad. There's a time and a place for them. Sometimes you want to put in place discounts to get people to do something they wouldn't have done without the discount. Certainly, these discounts are having an effect. People are stashing money into superannuation at a pretty extraordinary rate. In the financial year ending June 2023, Australians stashed away $42.7 billion above and beyond their employer contributions. That's money they put into their super on top of regular payments. That's extra. That's $42.7 billion; Australians paid $30 billion on electricity and gas over the same period. And why wouldn't they? You're allowed to do it. If you have some spare money lying around, you want to invest it. You can invest it in the stock market and pay the same full tax rate, or you can stuff it into super and only pay 15 per cent. Good luck to them. There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of the system as it stands.

I don't blame people who are lucky enough to be in a situation where they've got spare money to stuff into super in a cost-of-living crisis. Contrary to what some in this place might think, not every rich person got that way by doing something wrong. I just think, if you're lucky enough to be in that position, you don't need as much help as people who are doing tough. I don't think that's a controversial thing to say. A person with $1 million in their super account is better off than a person with $100,000. If you only have so much money to use to help people retire with dignity, I'd be thinking that the person who has managed to put together $1 million wouldn't be the person you'd throw most of the money at, yet that is exactly what the system is doing. What I question though is why we're using the tax system to benefit the retirement savings of very wealthy people when there are very poor people who could do with some help and who are going without.

Superannuation tax concessions, the discounts we give people for putting money into super, are estimated by Treasury to cost about $50 billion a year. That is how much our defence budget is. That's the money we could be collecting if we taxed it at the full rate, but we're not. It is the equivalent of our entire national defence budget, and, if we're coping a $50 billion budget hit, it's worth asking where that money is going; who is benefiting from that? According to Treasury's analysis, 40 per cent of the benefit—$20 billion—every year is going to the richest 10 per cent of Australians. The poorest 10 per cent got none of that benefit, not a single lonely dollar.

It's a situation that is getting worse every day, because the richest are the ones with the most money saved in super, and their super is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. The ones who make money out of super end up with more money than people who are making money working, after both have paid their tax bill. Your balance grows, and the more it grew in the previous years, the more it grows every year that follows. That's the beauty of compound interest. Money makes money. If you've got it, you'll keep getting it.

But, when the working poor are crying out for help to manage the cost of living, they are told there's no money in the kitty. 'We're skint,' we're told. Superannuation is supposed to be the system that helps people retire without relying on the age pension. It's supposed to help you live out your twilight years on your own terms. But, if you're one of 80,000 Australians with a balance of $2 million in your super, you are going to be fine in retirement. You'll be very comfortable, rest assured.

In fact, if you're a male retiring today with $2 million in your super, you can expect to live off $100,000 a year for the rest of your life tax free. If you live to your life expectancy, you'll still be left with $1.4 million in your super account when you die. If that's you and that's the situation you're in, you should be very pleased with yourself. Well done to you. You've done nothing wrong. You've invested well. You've put money away for a rainy day, and in retirement you receive the dividends for being a good saver.

But I have some bad news for you, and you're not going to like it. The Australian taxpayer subsidising you to live off $100,000 a year for the rest of your life is not a good use of taxpayer money, and I'm sorry to say that. I know it's hard to hear, and I don't say it because you are bad or evil or unworthy. I say it because there are people who aren't as well off as you who need help, and giving them a leg up now can help take pressure off the age pension down the track. A tax break for you will not help us save money down the line. It just fattens up your retirement savings and lets your super fund charge a higher fee. But a tax break for people in their early working life who have a shot at retiring without requiring the age pension saves us money.

The crazy thing is that our system doesn't prioritise these people; it prioritises the richest 10 per cent. In other words, there are two ways your lifestyle is funded in retirement: super and the pension. The more money you have in your super account, the less you are able to get of the pension. Keep in mind that your money grows in super, so the money you put into today is worth more later. Giving you money, or handing back money out of the till, might make sense if the money we give back grows enough to reduce your pension payments later on. Giving $10,000 in tax breaks to super makes sense if it saves you $20,000 in pension payments down the line. Giving $10,000 tax breaks to super payments makes no sense if the person you're giving them to won't ever qualify for the age pension because they have too much money already. If you have $2 million in your superannuation, you will not need the age pension. Spending money on you does not make sense. It might be nice for you to get, but that's not enough of a reason to do it.

The Labor government has made a noose for its own neck by promising to not touch superannuation tax concessions. During the election the Prime Minister said: 'We have no intention of making any super changes. We're making all of our policies clear'. Now he's saying that just because he had no intention then doesn't mean he can't change his mind—and he's right. It doesn't mean he can't change his mind. But why say it? People vote on policies that they think are yours and they expect you to work on them. Then you just change your mind and say your policy is to do the opposite. Do they get to change their vote too? Anyway, that's not the point.

The point is that the government is acting on making the system more equitable and more fair, and I think that is commendable. But they're doing one thing affecting people with more than $3 million in their super not especially clearly and not especially well. In the meantime there is low-hanging fruit that should be grabbed to make the system work for more people. I say that because the prism through which we should look at super taxation isn't 'How good is this for me?' but 'How good is this for the country?' A good, solid, sustainable system is good for the country. An unsustainable system that rewards the people who need it the least is not good for the country. It might be good for those getting the benefits, but that doesn't mean it's good.

One policy that I think makes sense is to pay super on carer's payments. Informal care is massive. About 2.8 million people provide informal care across the country. About 300,000 people receive carer's payments, half of them are over 55 and three-quarters of them are women. For many of them providing care is full-time work. You might find yourself in a situation where you're providing care in the blink of an eye. If your child suddenly requires daily care, you can't work and provide care at the same time. If an elderly parent needs support, you can't help them every day if you're working every day.

People on carer's payments tend to have to take time out of the workforce to provide care. Some will never return to work. Some will go back and when they do their superannuation will have gone backward. They have a one or two-year break in their income, which means they've got one or two years with no contributions from their employers. If they go back to work part-time, the gap will continue to grow. It will never close. Women already retire with less than men. We know that's not fair. These gaps in super are making it worse.

Paying super on carer's payments would be an investment in future pension savings. It's basically the Australian government putting money into superannuation on your behalf. The money you make is money they save when you retire. Giving it to everyone, however nice it would be, does not make the same sense, because about half of the people on carers payments have been on them for more than 10 years. Giving them super payments would not make sense, to be perfectly honest, because while it would be nice to be able to afford to do it, we'd be paying them money to take pressure off the pension—and it will not realistically do that. They will still retire with a full age pension because their balance would not come close. They have been out of the workforce for too long and the gap has grown too big. But if we limited payments to only people under 40 and only for the first two years, that would cost about $60 million per year. Because that $60 million would grow in their super accounts, it would end up saving money. The budget would actually be healthier by making these payments, supporting people to retire in dignity, in a way that is equitable and helping the budget at the same time. You might say, 'That makes sense and it is worth doing but where will that $60 million come from?' I say, 'Where is the $43 billion we are spending on super concessions every year coming from? You tell me.' This is the kind of thing you can afford to do if you are prepared to shave one-tenth of one per cent from the existing superannuation tax concessions, if you take just one per cent of the tax deductions we give to mostly high-income earners and then give 90 per cent of it back to those high-income earners.

Consider the difference you can give to early career carers. You should not retire in poverty just because your mother gets a terminal illness and you need to take leave from work to help look after her. You should not have to choose between dignity in retirement and your parents' dignity in the final months of their lives. This is a way we can make sure that choice does not ever have to be made. Yes, it costs us something and, yes, it must come from somewhere. But superannuation is the sort of thing where these choices are already being made every single day, enough choices to fund a whole nation's defence, so I do not accept that we cannot choose to fund this. I do not accept that we can choose not to do it, because that does not look equitable or sustainable from where I am sitting.

The coalition does not support this motion. Superannuation is Australians' money that they invest over long timelines and they deserve certainty about the policy settings that affect their retirement. The former government delivered major reforms to superannuation that supported better member outcomes, better performance and transparent governance and that were driven by the clear understanding that superannuation is Australians' money.

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer promised no changes to superannuation prior to the election, and the Prime Minister promised no major changes to superannuation in February 2023 but has since broken that promise by introducing a new tax on unrealised capital gains, which is a world-first wealth tax that will hurt farmers and family businesses, and force Australians to pay tax on money they have not earned. The government's failure to index the new superannuation tax means that up to two million young Australians earning average wages today will face a wealth tax according to analysis of the Treasury model published in The Australian newspaper. The government should respect the mandate from the Australian people and abandon its broken promise on taxing superannuation.

Senator Tyrrell, I am pleased that you brought this proposition here. I enjoyed listening to your contribution. It is a very welcome discussion in this chamber about the future of superannuation. It matters for individual workers and their families, it matters for the future of our economic system and it matters for—as you indicated—for fiscal stability and for meeting the government's economic objectives more broadly. So even though there will be disagreement in terms of content of the proposition, it is very welcome to have members of the crossbench contributing to these big economic questions about the future of the superannuation system.

Despite its central role in the retirement income system in Australia, there is no agreed objective of superannuation—legislated or elsewhere—that serves as a guide for policymakers, governments, regulators, the superannuation industry and the wider community and that is something that this government is determined to set about doing. These kinds of discussions occurring here are in a broad way helping inform that discussion.

There are jurisdictions all around the world that look at the Australian superannuation example with admiration and envy. It is seen as a shining lodestar for economic reform around the world. It was reported recently in the United Kingdom, where some workers have access to these kinds of pension fund arrangements and some workers don't. It's really interesting: what does this mean?

In Australia, as somebody who began in the Labor movement in the early 1990s—I am very, very old; I feel very old this week!—at the time when superannuation became a legislated right for all workers, I'm very conscious of the role that the accord process played. The Labor movement and then Labor government; Bob Hawke and Paul Keating; and the ACTU, led by Bill Kelty, Laurie Carmichael and some of these other people changed our economic fabric and made the deep economic reforms that really positioned Australia well for the 21st century. I saw building workers who had access to a growing superannuation account. I saw manufacturing workers and workers in civil construction—not just tradespeople and supervisors but process workers and labourers—who began the process of starting superannuation accounts. And people in the building industry—the building unions and building industry employers—started the old CBUS fund, which is still a very big fund now.

There were workers then, in the 1990s, who could retire with a nest egg that meant they could pay off their homes and set themselves up for their retirement. Some of them were able to self-fund their retirement and some had a mix of entitlements from the pension and their superannuation. They had choices about how they would spend their retirement years. That contrasted with so many other people I knew who didn't have that same dignity and didn't have that same choice. So I'm deeply conscious, not only of the proud tradition that the Labor movement and the Labor Party have in founding and building superannuation in this country but also of our unique responsibility not just to defend that legacy but also to think carefully about the future of the system. We need to consider, as Mr Jones, Mr Chalmers and others in the government are considering, how we refine and develop that legislated purpose. How do we set it out in a way that provides clarity?

It is a unique system. It is, as Senator Smith has said, in many respects, the superannuation account holders' money; it is their entitlement for when they retire. It is also a unique national asset: $3 trillion is in our superannuation system, last time I looked, and $2 trillion of that is in the industry super funds. That money must be protected and defended at all costs to secure a decent retirement for the account holders. But there are unique investment objectives to ensure that there's a rate of return appropriate for ensuring retirement in the long term for individuals. Those investment objectives match some of our potential; we must make sure that where there's an opportunity for superannuation to invest in the infrastructure of the future, in the industrial capability of the future around the country and in the kinds of projects that we need to make Australia the most productive it can be, that the right approach to risk and return is taken in all of those questions.

This is an enormous national asset that our country has and that very few other countries have. It's something that we should defend and protect all costs, and think about in an intelligent way. As I said, this debate is indeed very welcome. I understand that there has been a strain of thinking about this on the other side of politics that is reductive and offended by the very idea of trade unions and industry associations playing a role at an industry level in these questions. I think that misses the point of the system. The hostility to the trade union movement that sits behind a lot of this opposition and positioning around the future of superannuation is ultimately destructive. Ultimately, it undermines democratic institutions and the way that this system needs to be set up. What we want is Australians and Australian institutions working together in a meaningful way to make the kinds of decisions that these funds can make.

When we look at the history and the growth trajectory of what these funds are delivering for Australian workers and their families, there's a lot to be proud of. The size, scope, scale and growth of individual accounts over time are unparalleled. There are a few financial institutions, certainly private financial institutions, that can offer these kinds of benefits, this kind of scale and this kind of management. From where it started, it's building investment capability. Many of the funds would go to the investment experts, the private outfits at the big end of town, but many of these funds have built their own investment capability and they're some of the best people in the world. They're building the capability to make smart investment decisions. They're not flashy, with the greatest respect to the private investment houses—which have a very different culture—but they invest with an ethos to invest workers' money in a really careful way, and in a way that, over time, has delivered enormous benefits.

The government has introduced a bill that would establish the objective of superannuation as being to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement alongside government support in an equitable and sustainable way. That objective will serve as a reminder that achieving better living standards for Australians in retirement is at the heart of the superannuation system, and future policy changes should be compatible with that legislated objective. In line with that objective, the Assistant Treasurer introduced legislation that would reduce the tax concessions on total superannuation balances exceeding $3 million. I understand that was opposed by the opposition, and I won't argue with them about that today. I understand that they object to that proposition, but I just don't think that many ordinary Australians would object to the idea that tax concessions would not still be available for people who have superannuation accounts with more than $3 million in them, but think that it's a modest and responsible change that better targets tax concessions and doesn't interrupt the stability of the system.

If you're a school cleaner and you have a superannuation account, you wouldn't think it reasonable that the very small number of Australians who can stick $3 million into a superannuation account get an overly generous tax concession arrangement. If you're a welfare recipient in regional Queensland, the future of welfare payments depends on a sound fiscal position, you would not think that superannuation accounts with more than $3 million in them should have an overly generous tax treatment, but they will continue to have some tax concessions. The concessional tax rate applying to future earnings of superannuation balances above $3 million will be a headline rate of 30 per cent. Earnings corresponding to amounts below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent. That is an entirely reasonable proposition.

I understand that there is an ambition to go further. I welcome the discussion about all that, but that is the government's position. It is a reform that was opposed by some parts of this parliament. We believe that is a reasonable, effective position. We think there is strong support for it in the community, and it will mean a better targeting of amounts that deliver income for a dignified retirement. Members must also have confidence that every dollar that's spent by their superannuation fund is done so in their best financial interest, so we've strengthened transparency requirements in the superannuation system.

We passed legislation that would align reporting requirements for superannuation funds to be the same as the reporting requirements for public companies. And there is a lot of misinformation that is out there, particularly about the industry super funds and the payments they make. Those enhanced reporting requirements will make it very clear there is very strong governance and there are very strong boards. Some of the most capable people in Australia are serving on those boards. I've been lucky to sit on some of them over the course of my professional life, and I have nothing but admiration for those funds. It doesn't mean, like any corporate board or any board or any governance structure, that mistakes aren't made from time to time. They will be.

We're also going to make sure that payments are made on time, that there is effective compliance out there to make sure that every dollar, particularly for low-income workers, is deposited in their superannuation accounts at the right time.

I have just become conscious that there may be another senator who wants to contribute to this. I realise I've taken all my time and I really regret that I did.

I would just note that we have a hard marker at 5.30, so you will likely be in continuance, Senator Rennick.

Senator Ayres just belled the cat: he said superannuation was a national asset. It is not a national asset. It belongs to the people. It belongs in their individual bank accounts. This rubbish that it generates a return—people are paying 6½ per cent on their mortgage after tax. There isn't a super fund that is paying 10 per cent pre-tax at all. People are being forced to put money into superannuation when they could be paying down their mortgage at 6½ per cent.

Superannuation is a rip. It costs $50 billion in tax concessions for the mainly upper 25 per cent. It costs another $30 billion a year to run. And what's the average balance? The median balance for men aged 60 to 65 is $211,000. That will not get them off the pension. The median balance for women aged 60 to 64 is $158,000. It isn't going to do a thing to get people off the pension. It is nothing but a junket for rich people, the big end of town, the big corporates and the big unions who are milking hardworking Australians dry. For Senator Ayres to be saying it's a great national asset, nothing could be further from the truth.

Superannuation was set up by Paul Keating, Bill Kelty and Iain Ross. Iain Ross became famous as the president of the Fair Work Commission. They mandated superannuation and they mandated vaccines. And who in these industry funds actually gets to vote for the directors on the board? No-one. Because it is not democratic. It is communism. You have now got $3 trillion in centralised wealth controlled by 17 industry funds who all use the same proxy adviser at these AGMs to control what goes on in the economy. If you control $3 trillion in capital, you control industry and you control the media. It is unmitigated fascism, communism, and Marxism. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I want to put a few comments on the public record tonight in relation to the dishonesty that was presented to this chamber in relation to the salmon industry and Macquarie Harbour on the west coast of Tasmania. I say 'dishonesty' because the Prime Minister of this country did, in fact, write to the Premier of Tasmania. Yes, that part of the accusation that Senator Duniam made in this chamber was correct—the letter was sent yesterday—but what he said was that there was an offer of compensation in that correspondence. There is nothing further from the truth. The dishonesty absolutely astounds me.

I know there's desperation from the Liberals because the Tasmanian government is in trouble. It's falling apart. The wheels are falling off that rickety, old wagon that's been there 10 years too long. But the dishonesty is what disappoints me. I would have expected much better from my colleague, because I thought that there wasn't a Tasmanian senator from either the Liberal Party or—and I certainly know this—the Labor party that did not strongly support the salmon industry in Tasmania. We should be on the same ticket. We both share our concerns about the Greens and their position in relation to the salmon industry.

What is really disappointing is that, when the Prime Minister of this country writes to the Premier of Tasmania, it is twisted, used and misrepresented in the way it was in this chamber here today and in the local media. The Prime Minister outlined what this government is doing in support of regional areas, what we are doing in relation to housing and what we're doing about the Future Fund. That's what he wrote to the Premier about. But to have it turned around, and to be so blatantly dishonest, saying that the Prime Minister offered compensation and saying that we as a government, and as Labor senators, were not supporting the 400-plus jobs in the salmon industry—that is an outright lie. It is dishonest and it disappoints me. It really disappoints me that those assertions were made.

We are coming into the festive season. The thing that the salmon industry workers need is the support of the Australian government, the Liberal Party in Tasmania and the Liberal senators. But to cause undue stress and to make assertions that those jobs are at risk—there could be nothing further from the truth. The good senator knows that very well.

I know there is an election looming in Tasmania. The minority Liberal government—the wheels, as I said, are falling off—had desertions from two of their members. But that those in this chamber would use a piece of correspondence to the extent that he has—to be so dishonest—is so very disappointing.

Senator Polley, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam.

I ask that Senator Polley cease and desist from these reflections upon me and others around dishonesty. It's not accurate.

That's not a point of order.

I love it when they interject and make points of order when they know that there is no real point of order. The message I am trying to get across to those on that side is that, if you really care about the salmon industry, if you really do care about the women and men that work in that sector, you would be standing shoulder to shoulder with Labor senators and members of this government to ensure the prosperity of that industry going forward. That's what you would be doing. You would not be coming into this chamber, or going through the media or anywhere else, making unfounded allegations and accusing us of not supporting that industry, and misrepresenting the letter from the Prime Minister to the Tasmanian Premier. One would have to ask: is this part of the strategy? Is the Premier also on the same ticket as my colleague in this chamber? Is he is prepared to misrepresent the truth and the intention of that correspondence? It's so bitterly disappointing.

Senator Polley, while did you not use a personal reflection, the Deputy Speaker and I are trying to eradicate the word 'lie'. So if you could think about another word that would be good.

Pro fide pro utilitate hominum: for the faith and in the service of humanity. That is the catchcry of St John Ambulance. St John delivers first-aid and health care around the world and is a global leader in strengthening the resilience of communities in response to disaster. Every day, its 200,000 volunteers work for humanity, providing relief for people who are sick, distressed or suffering. Senators would be aware that I am a longstanding volunteer with St John, and co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of St John Ambulance alongside my colleague the honourable Carol Brown. I wish to inform the chamber about the important work of the St John Eye Hospital and its endeavours following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.

St John is a working order of chivalry. The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem traces its origins to the early 11th century. At this time, a hospital was established by Christian monks in Jerusalem to care for pilgrims who fell ill on their travels. Better-known as hospitallers, they gave care to all regardless of faith, race or creed. Queen Victoria opened the St John specialist eye hospital in 1882. It was established in Jerusalem and has provided care for more than 140 years. Since then, its services have expanded and it now operates satellite hospitals in the West Bank and Gaza. It employs more than 270 dedicated staff.

The St John Eye Hospital is the only charitable provider of eye care in the Middle East. All patients receive treatment regardless of their ethnicity, religion or financial standing, keeping faith with the ancient mission of St John. The hospital treated more than 140,000 people in 2022 alone, making it the most significant provider of eye care to Palestinians. The work is made possible through the generosity of the global St John family. The recent Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and the subsequent conflict have made the work of the hospital staff very challenging. In the early phases of hostilities, the hospital building in Gaza sustained structural damage from nearby explosions and had access blocked by rubble. Its staff and patients had to relocate to Rafa and surrounding districts, where they currently remain. Thankfully, no staff or patients were badly injured.

St John volunteers around the world are concerned about the safety of their brothers and sisters as they continue to provide 24-hour care to those in need amid the ongoing battle. In Jerusalem, clinical activities are down 55 per cent. However, St John is coordinating with Israeli authorities to enable patients to reach Jerusalem for emergency surgery. I thank the Israeli authorities for their support. Staff in the West Bank have established a child-vision screening program, which has screened around 1,000 children currently in refugee camps. The East Jerusalem clinic is providing essential services to patients who cannot reach Jerusalem and is operating at 100 per cent capacity. In the southern West Bank eye surgery is up by 55 per cent. Meanwhile, specialist doctors have been working overtime to restore services to the northern West Bank. I pay tribute to the dedicated St John staff who continue to risk their own lives to ensure the sick and wounded receive care. My thoughts and prayers are with the eye hospital chairman, Sir Andrew Cash, and the CEO, Dr Amad Ma'ali, and all hospital staff and their families.

When peace returns, St John will rebuild its facilities in Gaza, to continue its sacred mission to provide care to all those who are suffering. It is not the first time St John has faced this adversity. The Jerusalem hospital was rebuilt after being destroyed under Ottoman occupation in 1919 and again following the Israeli war of independence in 1948. St John will rebuild, but now it is focused on providing care to those in need. To support this work, St John has established a global fundraising appeal. I encourage everyone to support this worthy cause.

It is a delight to again take to my feet tonight to talk about something very important: the future of the salmon industry in Tasmania. In this cost-of-living crisis, which we see has come about as a result of the home-grown issues we face here in Australia, nothing is more important than having a job. Having a secure, well-paid job, particularly in regional Australia, is centrally important. That is why, today, I did talk about the future of the salmon industry in Tasmania, particularly on the West Coast.

Now, we know that, of course, the Australian Greens political party have an absolute ideological opposition to that industry. It's not based on science; it's not based on fact.

But what is alarming—and it has become apparent to us, over the last little while—is that it is apparently the case, in the view of the government, that there is opposition to this industry as well. The Minister for the Environment and Water has been flagging that she has an intention to review the approvals that enable this industry to operate in Macquarie Harbour. That is very, very concerning.

As I said earlier today, there are 400 hardworking, honest men and women who depend on the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour to pay their bills, to put food on the table and to be able to keep their kids in school. And that is a good thing. They are contributing to our economy. They have a wonderful, meaningful existence. They're providing for their children. And that's something we should protect.

That is why I am so concerned at the response from colleagues like Senator Polley and the rest of the Tasmanian Labor Senate team when it comes to my questions about this. Senator Polley just spent five minutes telling us what a good Tasmanian senator should be doing in response to this problem. I'm happy to work shoulder to shoulder with Senator Polley and all of her Tasmanian colleagues to stand up for this industry—including when it comes to things like ending funding for the Environmental Defenders Office.

The Environmental Defenders Office is a group funded by the Australian Labor government to take legal action against extractive and primary industries in regional Australia. Ten million dollars this government has budgeted to support this organisation. This is the organisation that is drawing into question the jobs of these 400 men and women in Western Tasmania. So, if we want to work shoulder to shoulder, I look forward to Senator Polley and Senator Urquhart and others from Tasmania joining with me in calling on the Australian Labor government to cease funding this organisation which is jeopardising the jobs of these hardworking men and women.

There were questions around honesty and what it means to stand up for Tasmania. Well, I'll tell you what it means to stand up for Tasmania. It means actually making efforts to ensure that the right outcome is achieved. What correspondence exists between Senator Polley, for example, and the minister for the environment expressing concern about the future of the industry under this review? Is there any? I don't know. I might put in an FOI request or an order for the production of documents to see. I suspect that there will be nothing, and it will prove that, in fact, what we heard before was nothing but words—nothing but a panicked and embarrassed contribution from a member of the Tasmanian Labor Senate team who has done nothing to stand up for this industry and is going to stand idly by while the minister for the environment teams up with the Greens to shut this industry down and take 400 jobs out of regional Tasmania. And we will all be worse off.

They say the letter from the Prime Minister was misinterpreted. Well, if that is the case, I find it passing strange. On 29 November this year, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier and said, 'Look, I want to talk to you about this review that may be about to occur with regard to the salmon industry under the EPBC Act, and, while I'm doing that, I might point you to these areas of economic and financial support that might be available.' Now, sure, the word 'compensation' may not be in that letter, but I don't know how else to read that—particularly when read together with the letter of 6 November from the minister for the environment to the Premier which talks about there being a 'pause' in the industry. Sure, that may not occur before the review is over, but certainly afterwards. That is another word for a shutdown.

This industry is in the firing line, and it is now for Tasmanian senators of every colour to come together and to make sure that we support this industry. And take it perhaps not from me or my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues, but from the Mayor of the West Coast Council, who described today this letter from the minister and the letter from the Prime Minister as a 'kick in the guts' to his community. This is not a scare campaign. This is not politics. These are people's jobs that we need to stand up for. And the Labor Party is the friend of the worker—or so they tell us. So I call on my Labor colleagues to join with me and the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team and the Jacqui Lambie Network to protect these jobs and rail against this review from Minister Plibersek.

Senate adjourned at 17 : 45