The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:31): I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator McKENZIE: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator McKENZIE: by leave—I move:

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

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

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PA SSAGE IN THE 2022 AUTUMN SITTINGS

ROAD VEHICLE STANDARDS (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends the Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 to extend the end of the transitional period to 30 June 2023.

Reasons for Urgency

The transitional period provided by the Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 will end on 30 June 2022.

Extension of the end of the transitional period is required to provide the road vehicle industry, which has been heavily impacted by COVID and global supply chain issues, with more time to transition to the new legislative arrangements provided by the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018.

It is time critical that the amending legislation be introduced and passed by Parliament in the 2022 Autumn sittings to provide certainty to industry stakeholders and in-service vehicle regulators ahead of the currently scheduled end to the transitional period.

(Circulated by authority of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development)

Question agreed to.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:33): I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018, and its subordinate legislation, introduced improved and simplified regulatory arrangements for importing and providing road vehicles for the first time in Australia.

The new arrangements deliver on the Australian Government's commitment to apply nationally consistent vehicle safety, environmental performance and security standards while also meeting consumer expectations that they may purchase a broad variety of road vehicles.

Each week around 24,000 road vehicles are being entered on the Register of Approved Vehicles so that they can be provided to the Australian market under the new regulatory arrangements. Consumers can purchase nearly 400 unique makes of road vehicles under these arrangements, and their choices continue to grow as more manufacturers and importers are approved to provide their vehicles under the new legislation.

This bill does not make material changes to the new legislative requirements for importing and providing road vehicles, which received bipartisan support in late 2018 and have already been adopted by large segments of industry.

Instead, this bill extends the transitional period for vehicle manufacturers and importers to fully conform to the new regulatory obligations from 12 to 24 months.

The Australian Government recognised early that many businesses would require a transitional period during which they would provide road vehicles under certain provisions of the old legislation while aligning themselves to the new regulatory requirements. The Government provided a 12-month period for this purpose in the Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018.

This period commenced when the new legislation was fully implemented on 1 July 2021.

During the transitional period to date, almost all road vehicle manufacturers and importers have had to manage the severe impacts of the COVID pandemic on road vehicle inventories and global supply chains.

The Australian Government has determined that a 12-month extension of the transitional period is necessary and sufficient to assist businesses that have not already transitioned to the new legislation.

The bill does not exempt any road vehicle manufacturer or importer from the requirement to transition to the new legislation in order to continue providing road vehicles to Australian consumers. The bill preserves the Government's intent that the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018 will provide the legislative basis for ensuring fair competition across Australia's automotive industry and consumer access to a variety of high quality and affordable road vehicles.

The bill maintains the provisions of the new legislation, and the vehicle type approval opt-in arrangements that ceased in late 2021 are not being re-opened. Road vehicle providers that have already transitioned to the new regulatory framework will be able to continue providing their vehicles using approvals granted to them under the new legislation.

To sum up, the bill essentially provides additional time to transition to the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018 to those businesses that need it without disrupting the commercial arrangements of road vehicle providers that have already transitioned to the new legislation. The bill delivers on the Government's objective to provide a fair, responsive and flexible legislative framework to support Australia's automobile industry for the benefit of industry participants and consumers.

Clear guidance will be provided to industry and the general public to ensure awareness of the extended transitional period, and information will be made available to support businesses to transition to the new legislation.

Debate adjourned.

Senat or RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:34): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:35): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2021-2022

SECOND READING SPEECH

Today, the Government introduces the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills. These Bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022; and

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022.

These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $11.9 billion. These bills ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs, for instance changes in costs for demand-driven programs. These bills also pay for the first year costs for measures announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and subsequently announced new measures.

Importantly, these bills also provide additional funding to support the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic through purchases of additional Personal Protective Equipment for the National Medical Stockpile and the national COVID-19 vaccine rollout, reflecting the latest health advice about dosage intervals.

Through this Bill the Department of Health will receive nearly    
.
$2.9 billion, the majority of which is for COVID-19 response programs, and a further $741 million of additional funding support for senior Australians.

The Bill also provides $2.8 billion in additional funding to the Department of Social Services for payment to the National Disability Insurance Agency to continue to deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This increased NDIS funding ensures that those individuals with permanent and significant disability receive reasonable and necessary support to build capacity, increase independence and establish stronger connections with their community.

The Department of Education, Skills and Employment will receive an additional $1.4 billion across a range of programs including an additional $73.9 million to support the child care sector, $102.4 million to support jobs in the post pandemic economic recovery and a further $1.096 billion to support vocational education and training.

The Department of Defence will receive nearly $1.3 billion. This additional funding is primarily to support the implementation of recent Government decisions on Defence capability and to continue the Australian Defence Force's support for the Government response to the COVID pandemic.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the Parliament.

I commend this Bill.

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2021-2022

SECOND READING SPEECH

Appr opriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022, which was introduced earlier, are the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills for this financial year.

Together, these bills ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs and measures.

This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $4.033 billion.

I now outline the most significant items provided for in this Bill.

The Bill proposes $2.493 billion to the Department of Health primarily for the purchase of additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for the National Medical Stockpile as part of the Government response to COVID-19. I note that pressure for additional PPE in February and March 2022 is met on an expedited basis using the Appropriation (Coronavirus Response) Bills (No. 1 and 2) 2021-22. Accordingly Bill 4 addresses pressure for additional PPE from the months of April to June 2022.

The Bill provides additional $424 million to the Department of Industry, Science Energy and Resources to support the construction of the Hunter Power Project by Snowy Hydro Limited.

Additional funds are also provided to the Department of Finance to support the final stages of construction of Centres of National Resilience in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. This augments initial funding provided through Advances to the Finance Minister in 2021.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimate Statements tabled in the Parliament.

I commend this Bill.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (09:35): Labor will support Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022. They represent additional estimates for the 2021-22 financial year, with a total of $15.9 billion appropriated across the two bills—$11.9 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and $4 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 4). The financial impact of these bills was incorporated into the budget bottom line as at the 2021-22 MYEFO, which was delivered last year.

It's appropriate that we debate these bills the day after the budget was delivered. What we saw last night was a fall in real wages, a trillion dollars in debt and the risk of a second wasted decade. Under the Morrison government, the cost of living is skyrocketing, real wages are going backwards and working families are falling further behind. Nothing in this budget makes up for a decade of attacks on wages, job security and Medicare. Its defining features are pay that won't keep up with prices and almost nothing to show for a trillion dollars in debt. It's a ploy for an election, not a plan for a better future. Australians need a pay rise, not a patch job that leaves them $25 a week worse off. An economy that works for everyone starts with a government that actually delivers what it announces, and we know that this one never does. It's a budget that includes $3 billion of secret cuts that the government has hidden—$3 billion of secret cuts that the government has hidden.

The Australian people will soon have a choice, and that choice is very clear: a Labor government led by Anthony Albanese will see budgets as an opportunity to plan for the future, not just plan for an election campaign; a leader who shows up, takes responsibility and wants to bring the country together versus a Prime Minister who can claim to do none of these things.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:38): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022. This government pretends that it can manage the economy, but all it really does is run up debt, keep wages down and waste money on rorts to keep itself in office. They have no macroreform or microreform agenda to deliver safe and secure jobs or to grow wages. Is there a single issue that faces our country that will be resolved by another three years of this lacklustre D-team government? They failed at disaster response, they failed at wage growth, they failed to address growing skills shortages and they failed to stand up to China.

It's just failure after failure with this government. Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells let us in on why that is the case. It's the fraud at the head of a decaying government—Mr Morrison. The announcement of the Chinese base in the Solomon Islands shows the abject failure of the Pacific step-up and shows to all of us that this government's posturings as being tough on defence and strong on China are utterly failing to win the hearts and minds of our neighbours in the Pacific, and that failure matters.

The economic ineptitude of this government is complete and total. We've seen wages stagnate for nine years, we've seen key industries haemorrhage jobs or shut up entirely, like the car manufacturers, and we've seen the cost-of-living burden for ordinary Australians waking up every day continue to skyrocket. They're feeling more and more vulnerable, more and more insecure, not only in their own employment but in the sense of the future for them and their families.

The economic model of this government—if I could be so generous as to call it that—is entirely shambolic. What happened to this government's supposed gas-fired recovery announced with great fanfare in 2020? The fact is, there are now 10 per cent fewer jobs in the industry, and two of Australia's oil refineries have closed during this term of government alone. Just think about the jobs, the jobs that are lost in that industry, despite the fanfare of the government's announcement. This is the government that positioned itself in public announcements as the saviour of the coalmining industry. But their track record tells a different story, and the truth simply does not align with the impressionistic painting of this government that it's there for you.

Make no mistake, last night we saw an urgent response to the cost of living because the government's only woken up to it in the last couple of weeks. For three terms they have allowed the conditions to exist that eroded safety and security for Australian families, increasing insecurity in work. They do not deserve another decade. They simply do not. As with all of the other budgets brought down by Josh Frydenberg, this one is about keeping his government in office by spending our taxpayer dollars like it's their Liberal Party money to buy seats.

This morning I heard Mr Chalmers, the opposition Treasurer, describe the reality of what happened overnight as the equivalent of this government using your dollars and attaching it to their 'how to vote'. It's a vote buyer for a short-term hit; that's all it is. This morning Mr Josh Frydenberg was completely unable and totally unwilling to answer reasonable questions about the $3 billion of cuts that lie on the other side of the upcoming election. And you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be coming out of your pocket. It won't come out of the pocket of multinationals or huge businesses that aren't paying their fair share. It will be ordinary Australians, who've paid with wage stagnation, who will pay once again if we get this government back. This government does not deserve another term.

The rorts under this government have reached unprecedented levels, with hardly a budget going by that doesn't overrule departmental and other expert advice in favour of their political agenda. They're not using our money to benefit the nation—putting money where it's needed on merit—they're out there with their colour coded charts figuring out how they splash money where it's best for their election. That is not a plan for the country. That's a plan for the Liberal Party and the disgraced Mr Morrison, whose own team don't even support him and are willing to put on the record that he is a man who lacks character, a man who will lie to the Australian people.

The infrastructure agenda for this country for the last four years has been dictated by that set of colour coded spreadsheets, by a list of marginal seats, and by the Treasurer's desire to save his own seat, to which he allocated a great amount of money for train station parking, commuter car parks which couldn't be delivered. In the end, he's had to pull the money. That's how chaotic the government's vote-buying exercises are.

The $660 million commuter car park fund was a slush fund for Liberal marginal seat holders, so badly put together, so shambolic that, like the Treasurer's own seat, several had to be cancelled due to it being completely unfeasible. Two were to be built next to stations due to close. Others have been announced and cancelled, and now we're up to the reannouncement in time for the upcoming election campaign. My dad always used to say, 'Well, you can fool the people some of the time, but you can't fool them all the time.' Australians cannot and should not be fooled into another term, a fourth term, of this government in decay.

We know that 77 per cent of those funds, your Australian taxpayer dollars, were funnelled by the coalition into its own seats—77 per cent—despite the fact that they only have a bare majority in the House of Representatives. It's hardly representative of need, other than the need for this government to buy its way back into office. They do not have a plan for the future of the average Australian. They're merely about planning for their own futures, because for those opposite, those in government, it's not about long-term infrastructure creation, it's not about long-term jobs and secure jobs and creating jobs; it's about keeping themselves in office. They don't care how much of your money they have to spend to do it, they will do it, even if it leads to gross mismanagement of our national economy.

Every Australian knows about the sports rorts: Mr Morrison's sports rorts, the funnelling of hundreds of millions of dollars to Liberal and National held electorates in a desperate attempt to pork-barrel their seats. Although one minister fell on her sword, the money remained spent and Labor electorates missed out again. It's an economic campaign of punishment. The only savings this government seeks to find are in not spending any money in Labor seats they don't think they can win. If you live in a seat that they don't think they can win, they don't want to give you anything, even though it's your money. They are not investing wisely; they are not investing fairly. They are investing in themselves and in a small part of our country. That's because they have a miserly and small vision. It's time to be done with the Morrison government.

Today's analysis in the Guardian shows that just 15 per cent of projects that were announced under the government's multibillion-dollar infrastructure budget splurge have been endorsed by Infrastructure Australia, the very agency that is there to weigh up: where do we, as Australians, invest our money in our country to get the best value for our dollar? Only 15 per cent of the projects advanced by that body, Infrastructure Australia, were supported by the government. The rest of them they made up themselves for their own advantage. That is a failure of government. It's a sign of a rotten government that does not deserve another term. Imagine how much more debt they're going to plunge us into over another three desperate years of trying to keep office, if they get back.

If all of that wasn't low enough, the government even rorted the disaster relief fund. In the middle of one of the worst floods ever to hit the Northern Rivers, the government denied funding to the local government areas in the federal electorate of Richmond, which is so ably represented by my colleague Justine Elliot. She has worked so hard for her constituency, alongside Janelle Saffin at state level, and they're fighting for a bit of a fair go. People there have everything they've ever owned floating down the street and mud running through their houses, and the country has to wait for Mr Morrison not to show up—sad enough, he had COVID and we can accept that—but he could have sent someone. He could have sent someone to stand up and say: 'I see your suffering. I understand the trauma of your community and I will support you in your hour of need.' But instead of doing the right thing, he failed to exercise a moral compass. He can pretend all he likes, but when Lismore was in flood and in need not only did he not show up but he didn't even bother to send somebody to represent him and do the job that we have a right to expect of our leaders.

The fact is that, when the rain falls and the fires burn, disaster doesn't discriminate—whether you're a Labor voter or a Liberal voter or whether it's a Labor seat or a Liberal seat. Disasters up-end lives and they ruin dreams. People can be powerfully resourceful and can do a great job in their communities, and they will. Australians will rise to the challenge. But there are some things that are bigger than what just a handful of people can do. That is why we collectively elect a government. That is why we pay our taxes. It's so that the government can wisely invest our money to ensure we all benefit, we're all protected and we're all looked after—not in an arbitrary, selfish way that gives them a good grab for the TV or the radio but in a way that actually supports a community in need. Every single time in the last three years of Mr Morrison's shambolic and morally bankrupt government, he has failed that test. Given that, it's no wonder that he shut down entire streets. It's because he's too cowardly now to meet locals anywhere in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales.

I want to talk about debt. The clarion call from former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was that Australia had to live within its means, that we had to address an alleged debt and deficit disaster. But, right now, thanks to the rorts and the many wasted programs, the Liberals and their junior partners, the Nationals, have raised Australia's debt to nearly $1 trillion. That is five times the level of debt that Labor left when we left office. Mr Abbott called it a debt and deficit disaster. Look at what this Liberal government that pretends to be a great economic manager has done to our country. What do we have to show for it? I was in the seat of Parkes, talking to people in Dubbo, Wilcannia, Cobar, Broken Hill and out at the Menindee Lakes at Sunset Strip. How did they benefit from the regional infrastructure program that funded a swimming pool in North Sydney? Those opposite laugh when I point that out to them. They know that this government has completely walked away from telling the truth to Australians. It's so twisted, bitter and cynical in its representation of what they've done to this country.

There have been so many Liberal lies, just like the ones about there being no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to education and no cuts to health. Every Australian knows that this government is unfit to govern. It certainly has no economic credentials on which to stand other than its own fanfare of a mythology about the Liberals being good with money. Australians deserve better. They deserve value for money and they deserve integrity in government.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (09:53): I firstly would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. These additional estimates appropriation bills—the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022—seek authority from the parliament for additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Passage of the bills will ensure continuity of government programs and commencement of new activities agreed by the government since the 2021-22 budget and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the remainder of 2021-22 as they fall due. Details of the bills were considered in the additional estimates process. Once again, I thank all senators for their contributions and commend these bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (09:54): No amendments to the bills have been circulated. As no senator requires a committee stage, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (09:54): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (09:55): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator HUME: by leave—I move:

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

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these 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 2022 AUTUMN SITTINGS

SUPPLY BILL (NO. 1) 2022-2023

SUPPLY BILL (NO. 2) 2022-2023

SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2022-2023

Purpose of the Bill

The 2022-23 Supply Bills will provide legislative authority for appropriations to fund expenditure to be incurred in the first five months of 2022-23 for continuity of programs and the running of Commonwealth agencies.

Reasons for Urgency

The Supply Bills will propose interim appropriations to continue the ongoing business of the Government from 1 July 2022 until 30 November 2022.

Passage of the Supply Bills before the issue of writs for an election due in the first half of the calendar year will ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the first five months of the 2022-23 financial year. Consistent with recent practice these Supply Bills provide sufficient interim funding until the end of the Spring sittings, to enable Annual Appropriations to be considered in a full Estimates process and in subsequent sittings to facilitate enactment.

Should passage not be granted in the life of this Parliament, the Commonwealth would not be able to ensure continuity of all programs or meet its obligations as they fall due beyond 30 June 2022.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance)

Question agreed to.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (09:56): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

SUPPLY BILL (NO. 1) 2022-2023

The Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, together with the Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, seek appropriations to facilitate the continuation of normal government business for the first five months of 2022-23.

The Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 provides for just over $80 billion of appropriations for proposed expenditure on the ordinary annual services of the government.

The appropriations proposed in this Bill are generally based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2022-23 annual appropriations. The 2022-23 estimates are broadly the 2021-22 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2021-22 Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills.

The five-twelfths allocations are adjusted where necessary for programs or entities that have uneven expenditure early in the financial year: for example, administered payments under programs that are made upfront in the financial year.

The Bill also includes COVID-19 response measures that have been extended since the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or the Additional Estimates' processes. This ensures that funding is available over winter and that essential support can continue to be provided early in the 2022-23 financial year.

I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until 2022-23 Budget Appropriation Bills have passed, therefore no new measures for the 2022-23 Budget are included in this Bill. This arrangement allows for an annual Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of government to be passed by the next Parliament, in the usual way.

The Bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $2.4 billion to provide the Government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure: $2 billion of the AFM provision is set aside for COVID-19-related expenditure and $400 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure.

While the COVID-19 AFM provision of a higher value accommodates the ongoing response to pressures emerging from the pandemic, the general AFM provision of a lower value marks a return to standard AFM arrangements. This completes the Government's commitment to return to pre-COVID-19 AFM settings when circumstances allow.

The COVID-19 related AFM remains a temporary measure and will be ceased in a future year when it has been determined that COVID-19 risks have sufficiently moderated.

In light of the size of the AFM, it is proposed to continue the strong accountability and transparency arrangements that have been in place from 2019-20 through to 2021-22, including a regular media release in weeks when AFMs are issued, which reports and reconciles the use of the AFM provision, and seeking the concurrence of the Opposition for any proposed AFM greater than $1 billion.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the 2022-23 Budget Appropriation Bills.

The Bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available for the first months of next financial year to all entities from 1 July 2022, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.

I commend this Bill to the chamber

SUPPLY BILL (NO. 2) 2022-2023

The Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, along with the Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 andthe Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, seek appropriations to facilitate the continuation of normal government business.

The Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 provides for just under $10.7 billion of appropriations that are not for purposes that include capital works and services, payments to States, Territories and Local Governments, and equity injections for the first five months of 2022-23.

The appropriations proposed in this Bill are broadly based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2022-23 annual appropriations. The 2022-23 estimates are largely the 2021-22 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2021-22 Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills.

The five-twelfths allocations are adjusted where necessary for programs or entities that have uneven expenditure early in the financial year: for example, the Government Schools National Support program in order to provide additional transition support for Northern Territory government schools to implement reforms agreed under the Commonwealth Government's Quality Schools package.

The Supply Bills also include COVID-19 response measures that have been extended since the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or the 2021-22 Additional Estimates' processes. This ensures that funding is available over winter and that essential support can continue to be provided early in the 2022-23 financial year.

The Bill also establishes the debit limits for 2022-23 for general purpose financial assistance payments and national partnership payments. The debit limits in the Bill reflect a full year of the estimated 2022-23 debit limits, so that agreements with other governments can be established with certainty for the full year.

The Bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available for the first months of next financial year to all entities from 1 July 2022, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.

As with the Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, this Bill seeks only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until Budget Appropriation Bills have passed, therefore no new measures for the 2022-23 Budget are included in this Bill. This arrangement allows for Annual Appropriations to be passed by the next Parliament, in the usual way.

The Bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $3.6 billion to provide the Government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure: $3 billion of the AFM provision is set aside for COVID-19-related expenditure and $600 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure.

While the COVID-19 AFM provision of a higher value accommodates the ongoing response to pressures emerging from the pandemic, the general AFM provision of a lower value marks a return to standard AFM arrangements. This completes the Government's commitment to return to pre-COVID-19 AFM settings when circumstances allow.

The COVID-19 related AFM remains a temporary measure and will be ceased in a future year when it has been determined that COVID-19 risks have sufficiently moderated.

In light of the size of the AFM, it is proposed to continue the strong accountability and transparency arrangements that have been in place from 2019-20 through to 2021-22, as outlined in the speech for Supply Bill 1 and as particularised in the Explanatory Memoranda to the Supply Bills.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the 2022-23 Budget Appropriation Bills.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2022-2023

The Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 provides appropriations for the first five months of 2022-23 for the operations of:

the Department of the Senate;

the Department of the House of Representatives;

the Department of Parliamentary Services; and

the Parliamentary Budget Office.

This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $114 million.

The appropriations proposed in this Bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2022-23 annual appropriations. The 2022-23 estimates are broadly the 2021-22 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters.

The Bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to the Parliamentary Departments from 1 July 2022, thereby ensuring the continuity of the Parliament's operations.

As with the other Supply Bills, I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks only to appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until the Budget Appropriation Bills have passed, therefore no new measures for the 2022-23 Budget are included in this Bill.

This arrangement allows for Annual Appropriation Bills for the latter part of next financial year to be passed under the new Parliament in the usual way.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the 2022-23 Budget Appropriation Bills.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:56): I rise to speak on Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, as well as Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. These bills are required to ensure continuity of government for the 2022-23 financial year, and Labor supports these bills. In supporting these bills, I'd like to make a few short remarks.

Those opposite have been in power for almost a decade. That's nearly ten years that they've had to act on some of the pressures that are clearly here with us now. They take their lead from their Prime Minister. Apparently, you've got to wait for a problem to become a crisis before you can act and wait until wages haven't just flatlined but actually gone backwards, leaving the average worker hundreds of dollars worse off, before you can do anything about it. It's never meaningful action once a problem has become a crisis, is it? They don't have the vision to come up with a plan that will help Australians for the long term. It's all about political management with the Morrison government: short-term fixes and one-off payments to get through the media cycle, or, in this case, the next election.

This is a government that is long on politics but short on plans, and this budget is just another example of that. What are they doing about the crisis that remains in aged care? They are saying, 'Oh, there's a one-off payment for staff, that's it,' and making no real commitment to implement the findings of the royal commission, including on minimum staffing levels. On wages they've come up short 52 of the 55 times they've presented wage forecasts, but they want us to believe that this time they really mean it—and, still, wages in this financial year go backwards.

What they've handed down in this document is a bandaid, not a budget for the future. All the announcements in the world can't cover up the fact that, over the course of this term in office, they have tucked billions of dollars away in slush funds that they will rort all the way to the election, and there's no reason for us to believe that this budget is anything different. With nearly $1 trillion in debt and deficits for as far as the eye can see, the only thing that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have their eyes on is how they can hide billions in the budget to pork-barrel their way through the election and save their political lives.

The Safer Communities Fund got a top-up last night. We know that this is one of the government's favourite funds to rort. Ninety-one per cent of round 3 funding went to the coalition's target seats. We wonder how much of that $50 million top-up is going to be distributed genuinely, or is it just going to happen in the same way that we saw 77 per cent of the Commuter Car Park Fund funnelled into coalition seats, the Building Better Regions Fund rorts and the sports rorts? There are so many examples of this government using the budget as the Liberal Party's own re-election fund. Is this really a budget for everyone, or is it a budget for those who live in the electorates where Mr Morrison wants to pick up votes? No wonder they have not funded the federal anticorruption commission Mr Morrison promised over 1,200 days ago. With these kinds of statistics, I'm not surprised they're worried about what it might find.

That's not to mention the colossal waste we've seen at the hands of this Prime Minister and his Treasurer. Over half a billion dollars has gone out the door to major consultancy companies in just the first eight months of this financial year alone. There was $20 billion in JobKeeper that went to companies whose revenue increased during COVID: that's $20 billion. Billions of dollars went on a second-rate NBN blow-out. Billions were spent on the submarine deal with the French before it was cancelled, and damages are still to come. There was $6 million on the COVIDSafe app, which didn't work. The list goes on and on.

One of the most concerning things in this year's budget that there hasn't been much discussion on yet, but I expect there will be, is the $3 billion of hidden cuts forecast for after the election. What we see from the government—and it sums up their approach around political fixes versus governing for everybody—is that there's a big load of expenditure this side of the election and then secret cuts to services after the election. We don't know what they are. This morning, when asked, the Treasurer didn't know what they were either—or just wasn't telling us. That's $3 billion. Is it cuts to Medicare? Is it cuts to payments? Is it cuts to the Great Barrier Reef? Who knows? We have no idea where these cuts are going to be made.

What we do know is that they come in after the election. That's what this Prime Minister's done. That's what this Treasurer has done in this budget. He's said: 'Here's a bandaid to get us through the next two months, three months, four months. We're going to give you this. But, when the election's over, if we are to win, this is what we're actually really about.' These secret cuts have to be called out and the government need to explain what they are. They cannot sneak their way through an election campaign when their own budget documents show $3 billion is going to be cut from spending programs after the election. We need to know the answer now. It's not good enough to hide it in the decisions taken but not yet announced column of the budget. We saw what they did with that last time, when they hid $16 billion there: 'Oh, yes, we've made all these decisions; we're just not going to tell you until it politically suits us.' This is exactly the same thing that's happening here: 'In decisions taken but not yet announced, in the years following the election, we are going to cut services; we're just not going to tell you what they are.' It could be Medicare. It could be aged care. It could be the NDIS. Who knows? The Treasurer knows. The Prime Minister knows. The cabinet know, presumably, because they signed off on the budget. Nobody's talking about it.

With a few weeks to go before the election, we need to call this out and the government need to be upfront with what they have hidden in that part of the budget. We've cottoned on to it. Australians have cottoned on to it. They know they can't trust this government. They know that this government doesn't tell the truth. They know this Prime Minister doesn't tell the truth. They know it's all about marketing, quick fixes, never taking responsibility, never planning, never preparing and only managing a crisis in a media cycle. That's what this budget is: it's a political fix; it's not a plan for the future.

What Australians need is a plan for a better future, and that's what the Labor Party, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese, will offer and will campaign on and will deliver if we win government. And that's our plans to get wages moving, our plans on cheaper childcare, our plans on cheaper and cleaner energy and the jobs and economic opportunities that come with that, and our plans on free TAFE and skilling the nation after years of neglect that have left us in a situation where we have low unemployment and a massive skills mismatch across the country. That's because of the failure of this government to deal with the skills crisis in this country, which has led to the skills crisis through lack of planning. And most important for many Australians is how we deal with Medicare, how we guarantee Medicare, how we protect Medicare from this mob on the other side of the chamber. Strengthening Medicare and protecting Medicare is in Labor's DNA. We created it, we've protected it and we will continue to do so. We need to know whether the $3 billion in cuts that have been outlined in this budget, after the election, are about cutting peoples' access to Medicare. Until the government comes clean on that, that's what we will presume because they have got form on that. So I would challenge the government to come clean on what the $3 billion worth of cuts are.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:06): I must correct Senator Gallagher. Perhaps in the interests of brevity she forgot to mention the $3.5 billion of spending on utility helicopters that has now been cancelled as well, and the Army Battle Management System that has been withdrawn from service. Thank you very much, Senator Gallagher, for leaving that for me. That's good. There is a huge problem in the defence space. Everything the Prime Minister is doing is targeting 2040—we're going to have a submarine in 2040, we're going to have submarine bases in 2040 and we're going to have an upsized ADF in 2040. Right now we have trouble in Ukraine. That's a spark that may let off the tinder box that is Taiwan and China. We have had Chinese warships travelling through the Arafura Sea lighting up P-80 aircraft with a laser, we've had regular deployments to watch Exercise Talisman Sabre and now we'll likely have a military base set up by China in the Solomons. Yet the government focuses on 2040. Can I remind the chamber and those listening that the only way a 2040 submarine delivered to the Royal Australian Navy will be able to properly help us in defence is if it's got a time machine to be able to come back to the present moment where we need to have good ADF capability. I was disappointed in the budget last night with some of the spending commitments envisaged for the Future Submarine, and I will come back to those.

I want to talk about the fuel excise cut, and I note that I do have a second reading amendment in relation to this. On 22 February, I called on the government to reduce the fuel excise. I did that because, whilst it was prior to the Ukraine crisis, we could see the Russians mounting up at the border and it was almost inevitable that the Russians were going to cross into Ukraine. So I made a call for a cut in fuel excise. Then we saw a whole bunch of ministers responding to that call. On his show on 9 March, Ben Fordham asked Angus Taylor, 'Are you absolutely ruling out any change to the fuel excise between now and election day?' Angus Taylor replied, 'What I'm saying is that we have no plans to do that, Ben; we have no plans to do that.' Scott Morrison, at a presser on 15 March, said: 'You don't go and completely recalibrate your budget based on fluctuations in oil prices. They have gone up. They have gone down.' He was asked: 'Barnaby Joyce says changes to the fuel excise are off the table. Is he right?' The Prime Minister said: 'I haven't seen those comments'. Let's go to an interview on 17 March:

Asked whether cutting the tax would help in easing cost of living, the Deputy Prime Minister said: "No it won't".

"But what it will do is it'll take money away that we spend on roads," …

There's quite an irony. When the Treasurer gave a hint, over the weekend, that the fuel excise would be cut, at the same time he announced $18 billion in infrastructure programs, including roads. The Australian public have to make sure they understand this: fuel excise is not connected to road spending. Fuel excise, by law, must go into consolidated revenue, and it is politicians who decide how much is spent on roads. So there's a fallacy there.

The government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, yesterday, to have a reduction in fuel excise, which is desperately needed by Australians who are suffering from increased rents and increased grocery prices. We've seen fuel prices go from $1.80 to $2.20 per litre, and that's crippling. You can't ease off on your fuel expenditure: you have to go to work; you have to take the kids to school; you do need to go to a doctor. Indeed, if you're in the country that situation is worse, because all of the distances are much greater. So it was obvious we needed some form of relief. But what did we see last night? We saw a halving of the fuel excise for six months.

Let me tell you: the reason fuel prices are high is that there has been an unlawful invasion of Ukraine by Russia. That's driven up the fuel prices because of sanctions. If you look at what's happening in Ukraine, the Russians are bogged down. They are not—thank goodness—going to annexe Ukraine. They might get part of it, and stop, and there will be some sort of negotiated settlement, no doubt. But before that there will be an insurgency, and these fuel prices are going to remain high until that insurgency concludes, because the sanctions are going to stay. There is no way that this is going to be over in six months—no way. And the government should know that. The government should be aware of the strategic circumstances.

So why has it only given six months of relief? Because that's what it takes to get through the election. That's why we've got only six months of the cut in the fuel excise, because it's about buying votes. In fact, when I look at the budget as released last night, it is a budget to buy power, with a whole bunch of short-term sugar hits. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent to buy power. And that money will be a debt for our children and grandchildren. That's what's going on.

When I looked at the budget last night—and particularly as a South Australian—I was very disturbed. It is clear to me that Mr Morrison has delivered a budget that is a payback budget for South Australia. It's a payback budget because South Australian electors decided to elect Premier Malinauskas as our state leader. I am sure what's happened is that the government has gone through and struck out, deleted, all the bits about South Australia and said: 'Here's our punishment to you. Here's our payback to you.' If I look at the expenditure that's taking place, it delivers so little to South Australia. The portion of infrastructure spend for South Australia has gone from 22 per cent last year to only 16 per cent this year.

South Australia has also been left out of the government's regional transformational infrastructure program, which is basically $7.1 billion targeting the Northern Territory, northern and Central Queensland, the Pilbara and the Hunter. Let's make no mistake—and I've just glanced at a Greens amendment in relation to this—that is pork-barrelling. That is pork-barrelling to win an election. Now, I just want to make sure that the chamber is really clear on this: pork-barrelling is corruption. I'll say that again: pork-barrelling is corruption. It's taking taxpayers' money and directing it at projects that are intended to buy votes to allow people to stay in power. That is using taxpayers' money for personal benefit. We really have to think about change here. I'm sick and tired of us sitting here watching time go by and, just prior to an election, suddenly a whole bunch of announcements are made. They're made depending on a red or blue square in a spreadsheet. There are people who live in safe seats—and I'm talking about safe Liberal seats and safe Labor seats—who sit back and get nothing. Do you know what? There is likely to be a need for those people that is simply not being met because of political corruption. It's wrong. I had someone say to me yesterday on Sky: 'But that's how it has always been.' That might be the case, but it's wrong. We've got to change that. We've got to stand up and act with integrity. Let's start having projects planned out, going through a proper needs analysis, a proper check for value for money, making sure that we spend our money wisely in a coherent manner that seeks to grow the economic pie, to make the economic pie much tastier. None of this corruption, please! The Australian public are over it, including people who might be the beneficiary of some of this pork-barrelling.

I foreshadow that I will, at an appropriate time, circulate an amendment to future appropriations bills related to that program to include South Australia. I would think that if Senator Lambie is listening she will do the same for Tasmania. And I would think that if Zali Steggall is listening she will do the same for people in her electorate. That would be harder for people in the Labor Party or the Liberal Party because they have to stick within party lines. But we Independents don't. I can assure you that that amendment will be circulated in due course.

I look at the budget spending for South Australia. The North-South Corridor—that's all we ever seem to get in our budget spending. There's so much that we need in South Australia that is just not being addressed. I look at the Eyre Peninsula. We need a desal plant there. Just as Thomas Playford brought a pipeline from Morgan to Whyalla that totally transformed regional South Australia, we need to have proper water resources on the Eyre Peninsula. We need to have rail on the Eyre Peninsula. We need to have proper power capacity on the Eyre Peninsula. We need to have an extended runway at Coober Pedy. We need to fix up the road that leads to the ferry down at Kadina, in Wallaroo. We need all of those things. This is a punishment budget for South Australians voting for the Labor Party—make no mistake.

I want to give a wake-up call to Rowan Ramsey. Liz Habermann may run in your electorate. You've got to get off your butt and stop just getting road funding, which is just a normal share. You stand up and wave a flag and say you've done a great thing for the Eyre Peninsula and for Grey. But you simply haven't—perfunctory at best. We saw what happened with Sam Telfer in Flinders, where Liz gave him a good shake-up. Good on her. She's taken a long-term safe Liberal seat and turned it into a marginal seat. That's going to be great for the people of Port Lincoln and Ceduna and all up the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula.

I looked at the shipbuilding plan. I looked at the graphic the government put in the budget around shipbuilding. For South Australia, for jobs, they included the Air Warfare Destroyer, the Hunter project and the Collins full-cycle docking work and life-of-type extension. But there is no graphic there that shows a future submarine—and that's because it's a decade away.

The government keeps promising to South Australians projects like the Future Submarine project. We are obviously the most capable state for delivering something like that. But, in actual fact, there's really nothing in the budget in relation to that. We are not going to be building a submarine in South Australia for a decade, if ever, because the government's realised the mistake of the 2040 deadline. They are trying to roll it all the way back now. As they try to crunch that schedule, they are going to try to removes risks and they are going to point to South Australia and say: 'You know what? We are not going to do that there.' It will be just as we saw with Minister Reynolds making an announcement that they were going to build an HADR ship in Australia. Then, because of changing strategic circumstances, they have decided to buy that offshore. That's just the way this government has worked. Sadly, for South Australia, there's payback in this. People should remember when they go to the election that that's exactly what's happened. We have been ignored and punished because people chose to vote in Peter Malinauskas.

I move:

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

(a) the Senate highlights the impact on Australian families and small businesses, including inflationary consequences, of current extreme petrol prices;

(b) the Senate calls on the government to:

(i) introduce legislation to amend the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921to cut the fuel excise by 23 cents a litre for a period from 31 March 2022 to 30 June 2023, and

(ii) suspend indexation of the fuel excise for the same period; and

(c) a message be sent to the House of Representatives informing it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence in the resolution".

Senator COX (Western Australia) (10:21): We are in a climate crisis, and the government is pouring fuel on the fire. We need to ensure that this budget doesn't fund opening up the climate bomb in the Beetaloo. That is why we will be taking the unusual but not unprecedented move to seek to move an amendment to the Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 today. We are not seeking to block supply. We will not vote against the bill. This amendment will not affect the passage of the bill. What this amendment will do is not reduce the money being provided by the government, but it will prevent the government from spending our money turbocharging massive gas projects in the Northern Territory, from the Beetaloo to Middle Arm to Barossa, just as the climate crisis has started arriving—and the levee has been breached in Lismore.

We are at a time in history when every moment matters and what we do matters. Unfortunately, we are running out of time. We must keep coal, oil and gas in the ground. But what we continue to see in this place is the government's infatuation with gas projects. This continues. It means approvals are being fast-tracked left, right and centre in this country without consent, without proper processes and approvals that truly assess the damage being caused to the environment and, again, without true free, prior and informed consent.

Last week I had the privilege of chairing the environment committee hearing on the Beetaloo. I heard from traditional owners, pastoralists and other people living in the Northern Territory about how they don't want fracking on their traditional lands, how they don't want this to affect the fragile and precious ecosystem in the Northern Territory. There's no doubt the drilling will have consequences on the flora, the fauna and also the cattle. This is what I heard from those farmers. It's further compounding the impact on endangered species and savanna ecosystems. Fracking will pose a serious risk to our precious groundwater. Groundwater is especially critical in the Northern Territory because it's 90 per cent of the water that is for human purposes, including drinking water, and it's drawn from the aquifers.

But here we continue to ignore the independent review of fracking in the Northern Territory, the Pepper inquiry, the climate science that has noted the environmental, social and economic risks from fracking in the Territory. It's clear from the evidence that I heard that our legislative frameworks allow big corporations to get away with the destruction of country, and the regulatory policy framework that is still on the drawing board for the Northern Territory government means there are no checks and balances.

These risks are unacceptable. Despite all this, despite the significant risk, despite the wishes of the people living in the Northern Territory, this government gives the green light in this budget to fast-track those approvals and continues the destruction of country that threatens the health, the wellbeing and the livelihoods of the people in the Northern Territory—granting public money to party donors for this climate-wrecking project that no-one wants and that is unethical, wasteful and a danger to our children's future.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (10:25): I would like to thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on the Supply Bill (No.1) 2022-23, Supply Bill (No.2) 2022-23 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.1) 2022-23. These supply bills seek authority from the parliament for the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the first five months of the year 2022-23. The total of the appropriation sought through these three supply bills is just over $91 billion.

These bills must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2022, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery in the early months of the next financial year. I also wish to emphasise that these bills only seek to appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis, until the annual appropriation bills have passed. Accordingly, no new measures for the 2022-23 budget are included in these bills.

In relation to Senator Patrick's second reading amendment that calls for petrol indexation relief for 15 months, I would say this in response: we are cutting it to six months, consistent with what the budget and the Treasury have estimated for the duration of fuel price pressure. By the time we have got to the end of September this year, they're expecting the oil prices to have fallen. In New Zealand, by way of contrast, they have done it for the next three months—not six months as we have here. We think it will take longer than three months, and that's why we have kept it over the six-month period through when the fuel price increases are forecast, at this stage, to abate. Our excise cut halves the rate, which is currently 44c. This is broadly consistent with the reduction proposed by Senator Patrick, and for these reasons the government does not support the proposed amendment.

Once again, I thank all senators for their contributions and I commend these bills to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ): I intend to put the question in relation to Senator Patrick's second reading amendment. I put the question that the second reading amendment of Senator Patrick be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I now put the question that the bills be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Senator Patrick: by leave—Mr Deputy President, under the standing orders I ask that my vote be recorded in favour of my amendment to the second reading.

Senator COX (Western Australia) (10:29): On behalf of the Australian Greens and in respect of Supply Bill (No. 1) 2022-23, I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Page 6 (after line 2), after clause 9, insert:

9A Energy Security and Regional Development Plan — Nor thern Territory

(1) No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent in the Northern Territory region as part of the 'Energy Security and Regional Development Plan' as described in Budget Paper No. 2 2022-23 on page 133.

9B Energy and Emissions Reduction

(1) No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on the 'Future Gas Infrastructure Investment Framework' as part of the 'Energy and Emissions Reduction' program as described in Budget Paper No. 2 2022-2023 on page 125.

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

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it is to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.

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

Amendment (1)

As this is a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Walsh ): The question is that the request for an amendment be agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:38): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I move One Nation's amendment to Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 on sheet 1589:

(1) Page 10 (before line 14), before paragraph 16(2)(a), insert:

(aa) must be made on the condition that the payment must not be used for expenditure related to the provision of vaccinations for the coronavirus known as COVID-19 to children aged 0 to 4 years; and

These bills that are before us include an additional $690.4 million to extend the COVID vaccination program until the end of 2022. While One Nation does not oppose the extending of the period that these vaccines are being offered, we oppose any attempt to mandate these vaccines and extend the use of these vaccines to infants and toddlers. We support freedom of choice and acceptance of a person's choice. We oppose totalitarianism and we oppose control over people. Last night, Health Minister Hunt did indeed reveal that planning is underway to extend COVID vaccines to children aged zero to four—babies and newborn infants to four-year-olds. The four-year-old has been described as the height of human civilisation. I won't go into the reasons why, but it's quite clear.

This is the precious future of our species, of our nation. Clearly, this Morrison-Joyce government—and I hope the Liberals are listening—is intending on using the cover of the election to vaccinate infants and toddlers for a disease with a 100 per cent survival rate for a child that age. The injections are known to be killers, and now the Morrison-Joyce government wants to push it into babies.

I wish to observe these bills allocate additional funding to extend the vaccine injury compensation scheme to cover the administering of COVID vaccines to infants and toddlers aged zero to four. Clearly, if we are to inject these poisons into the arms of our youngest then compensation should be on offer when the inevitable and needless injury and death result. Those injuries and those deaths will be at the hands of this parliament and everyone who votes for these provisions.

For two years now the Liberal Party and their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, the Labor Party and the tail that wags the dog, the Greens, have been acting as a pharmaceutical company parliamentary lobby. Vote after vote has lined the pockets of foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies that are selling products on the basis of spurious provisional approvals of untested, or partially tested, experimental gene therapy treatments. The health minister, Greg Hunt, said:

The world is engaged in the largest clinical … vaccination trial …

Yet what we've seen in this country is people forced, coerced and bullied into taking experimental gene therapy treatment or else losing their livelihoods, their ability to feed their children.

The notion of my body, my choice—such a stalwart of the Greens party—has been trashed, and Greens voters have noticed. People now see the Greens are about globalist control, camouflaged behind a cloak of green. The Greens pretend to talk about standing up to corporates, but they are the patsies of the corporates.

Everyday Australians are quite rightly asking questions around vaccine harm, prompted by the sheer volume of Australians experiencing major vaccine side effects. I met a mother last week whose 23-year-old daughter died as a direct result of a vaccine—a COVID vaccine. I've heard of many others and I commend Senator Rennick for his work on this.

These side effects were obvious right from the start, if ATAGI had bothered to look—that's why we're here protecting, because they haven't bothered to look. We know that the highly limited testing of these COVID injections was compromised, corrupted and falsified. We know the TGA and ATAGI failed to obtain de-identified clinical patient data from the trials. Had they done so, they would have seen the trials indicated an unacceptable level of harm and loss of life. The Morrison-Joyce government made the wrong decision in approving these vaccines, and it knew, or should have known, at the time the wrong decision was made.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has been intimidating and threatening medical practitioners in order to suppress the truth and maintain their loyal service to the pharmaceutical industry. I've been to meetings with doctors who can now see their industry has been trashed, their profession has been trashed. We don't go to see doctors now; we go to see ATAGI, we go to see TGA, we go to see AHPRA. The doctor-patient relationship has been trashed in this country—a 3,000-year-old tradition that started with the Greeks, trashed. We now consult with the regulators.

Now we can see doctors starting to stand up. We see the rates of miscarriage increasing 50 per cent in some instances, and 75 per cent is now the rate of miscarriage amongst people at fertility clinics—75 per cent of women miscarried. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has been intimidating and threatening medical practitioners in order to suppress the truth and maintain their loyal service to the pharmaceutical industry. Decisions around COVID vaccinations have been made by expert committees with unacceptable, massive, open conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. University academics sitting on TGA expert panels are often funded by pharmaceutical companies. Career progression for academics depends on subservience to big pharma. The provisional approval process was conflicted to a criminal degree. A royal commission is needed to unroll the layers of disinformation, corruption and conflicted decision-making that have harmed so many Australians, in taking at least the 800 lives that we know of and the many, many more not reported because of the suppression of reporting.

The register of childhood vaccinations was recently expanded to include flu shots. Is it the intention of this government, Minister, to include COVID shots in that register? In effect, this would make the COVID shots compulsory for children under the No Jab, No Play rules. We do not oppose vaccines; we insist on freedom of choice and acceptance of that choice. Could this government and this health department be so evil as to make COVID shots compulsory for children under the No Jab, No Play rules? Could they be so evil? Could they be so inhuman? I do not want to find out.

Today I have moved One Nation's amendment on sheet 1589 to ensure that these funding bills do not allocate funds for the extension of COVID vaccines to children under the age of five—from birth to the age of four. The 47th Parliament, of course, will be free to make that decision. It's your decision. It's your conscience. I can only hope that the debate will honour the democratic process and that the right decision will be made, and humanity will be treated with respect and reverence, as humans should be, especially infants to four-year-olds—newborns to four-year-olds, the height of civilisation. I ask the Senate to support my amendment.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (10:46): The government opposes this amendment, just as we opposed Senator Cox's request for an amendment to Supply Bill (No. 1). We believe it is contrary to the bipartisan convention that supply legislation ought not to be amended, unduly delayed, procedurally obstructed or rejected. The government opposes this amendment for that reason.

Money bills only assign portions of consolidated revenue by outcome. And separate legislation is then used to give detailed legislative authority for expenditure, consistent with the High Court's Williams decision. An amendment such as this therefore belongs not in a supply bill but in other legislative artefacts.

It is for those reasons that we will not be supporting this amendment.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:47): We're not opposing the appropriation of money, Minister; we're opposing the extension of that money, unannounced, to cover vaccinations—injections—to newborns to four-year-olds.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Walsh ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (10:57): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:58): by leave—I want my name recorded as having voted no.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ): It will be so noted.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (10:58): I am in continuation on this. Labor supports this bill and knows that something needs to be done to combat the rise in insurance premiums that North Queenslanders face due to the growing threat of natural disasters through that region. We have seen between 2007 and 2019 average home insurance premiums rise in real terms by 178 per cent in northern Australia, and combined house and contents rose by 122 per cent in northern Australia but decreased by three per cent in real terms in the rest of Australia. That gives you a real sense of the challenge facing those in North Queensland. The government tasked the ACCC with looking at what can be done, and the ACCC had an inquiry into insurance in northern Australia and recommended a number of measures to improve insurance affordability. However, it's important to note that they did argue against creating a reinsurance pool. The government has taken up none of those recommendations of the ACCC report and has instead gone ahead with the reinsurance pool. Many of those ACCC recommendations would have made a difference to insurance premiums over the course of this government. The LNP government have had nine long years to do something to reduce insurance premiums and yet they have acted only in the final days of parliament and days before an election is called.

After all this time we still can't get any details from the government about the supposed savings to average insurance holders. Australians know that they just can't trust this government's claims when it comes to this. The PM said first that it would save those people in North Queensland 10 per cent on their premiums. Now you have Minister Sukkar saying people will save 46 per cent for home and contents insurance and 58 per cent for strata insurance. Although the government have been using the language that those savings would apply to people with the most acute cost pressures, they still won't detail or define how many people would fit in this category, so we have no idea how many people they're claiming would benefit from these savings. We had the Prime Minister saying first that it would be 10 per cent and we have Minister Sukkar now saying something different, and they won't actually release any modelling or detail to give proof to their claims.

The government have been very secretive about the modelling that underpins these apparent savings claims. Despite the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this legislation, the government continues to claim public interest immunity. The government's refusal to release this critical information has made it extremely difficult for the insurance companies to assess these claims and model the impacts on their customers in North Queensland. We heard this in the Senate economics committee inquiry into this bill. A number of witnesses raised concerns about the lack of transparency on this modelling. The RACQ submitted to the committee:

To date, RACQ cannot assess the impact the pool will have on our member's home insurance premiums, primarily because we have not received proposed pricing rates or associated modelling from the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation.

During hearings, representatives of the RACQ confirmed that they still hadn't heard anything regarding the modelling and said:

… the reality is that we cannot determine the savings at this point in time until we see more information and that includes the price from the ARPC. We need to understand what the pool is going to cover.

Similarly, the Northern Australian Insurance Lobby said it would like to see the modelling, as it was uncertain who would actually see the savings. They said:

We would love to see the modelling and how that will impact policyholders, because it says 'up to 46 per cent'. Are 90 per cent of people going to get a five per cent saving and only 10 per cent get the 46 per cent saving?

Sure Insurance, which has a lot of coverage in North Queensland, were concerned that these changes could result in their policyholders actually receiving an increase in insurance premiums. They said:

The prospect of some policy holders being potentially handed a non-negotiable price rise because of the pool's introduction is clearly not acceptable for Sure's customers, and may potentially be viewed as a failure of government policy in its stated public commitment to insurance affordability.

That is a business grown in North Queensland, providing affordable insurance to those people, saying that they are nervous that this could actually lead to an increase in premiums for their customers.

As you can see, it's not only Labor that has been calling for transparency on the modelling; it is the companies that are providing insurance to North Queenslanders, which makes it more outrageous that, while North Queenslanders are paying record prices for insurance, this government claims it is not in the public interest to release this information. How can North Queenslanders trust this government, which still hasn't acted on the findings of the ACCC report and, having has spent nine long years in power, has done nothing to ease the cost of living and is now trying to pass reinsurance legislation in the last moments of parliament and yet won't release the critical modelling underpinning this legislation?

In the economics committee Labor raised concerns about the claims period. Currently the legislation has a 48-hour claims period following the downgrade of a cyclone by the Bureau of Meteorology. Many groups are saying that this is completely inadequate. These calls are represented in the report. They were made by groups like the RACQ, the Insurance Council of Australia, the National Insurance Brokers Association, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Council of Small Business Australia and the North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils. So a wide array of organisations are concerned about the limiting nature of this legislation for insurance claims as well. This is best evidenced by the North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, which stated in its submission to the committee that, in its opinion, 'a claim period of 48 hours is inadequately short.' It went on to say:

For example, the Herbert River and the Burdekin River catchments cover 132,330 km², or about 7.6% of Queensland. In catchments this size, it takes several days for the full effect of cyclone related floods to be felt.

It would be unfair for communities affected by TC-related floods to miss out on the benefits of this legislation, simply because they live in a large catchment where flood waters take more than 48 hours to reach them.

For North Queensland, a 48-hour claim caveat is inadequate and needs to be extended.

Labor has called on the government to spend more on mitigation as well. Labor is committed to spending $200 million a year on disaster prevention and mitigation. The Morrison government set up a $4 billion emergency response fund. It's now got $4.7 billion in it and has accrued $750 million in interest while the government has not spent a cent on mitigation projects.

I've seen firsthand how crucial these mitigation projects are. In April last year I travelled to Roma with Labor's shadow assistant minister for financial services, Matt Thistlethwaite, and we met with Mayor Tyson Golder, who showed us the benefits the flood levee has brought to Roma and how it has led to reductions in insurance premiums for those in town. The levee was a great example of how governments can deliver important infrastructure projects that prevent flood damage to houses and businesses and lead to ongoing savings in insurance premiums. These are the kinds of projects we need to see the government invest in to protect businesses and households and also help reduce the cost of insurance premiums in North Queensland.

Unfortunately, as we've seen with the reinsurance pool and the issue of the ongoing exorbitant costs of insurance in North Queensland, this is a government that has had nine years to act. It finally try to act now before parliament finishes and days from an election being called, but you can still have little confidence that this is going to lead to a reduction in insurance premiums for those people in North Queensland who need it the most.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:07): I rise to make a contribution having happily been a member of the northern Australia infrastructure committee and having travelled quite extensively, particularly in health committees, across the north of this country. Invariably, no matter what policy we were interrogating, the issue of insurance for people in the north would come up. It's like they're the canary in the coalmine for the rest of the country.

I am a senator for New South Wales. Overnight, people in Lismore were once again having to evacuate because the reality of what is happening with our climate—which has been long denied by those opposite—has actually been doing its work and changing the way in which our planet is operating and the way in which we are able to live going forward.

Not everybody has insurance. Sometimes you might have just forgotten to fill out the form, but many times it's because people hit a point where they simply cannot afford to do it anymore. They weigh up the risk and the reward. Household insurance can now cost $2,000 in a non-high-risk environment. What happens when you get to the point—as has happened in northern Queensland, and I see Senator Malarndirri McCarthy here from the Northern Territory, as well as Senator Watt. They know all too well that there has been a 300 or 400 per cent increase in insurance in the north of this country? I'm delighted to see people back in the building and here in the gallery, because you know what I'm talking about.

An honourable senator: The mayor of Alice Springs is here too.

Senator O'NEILL: I recognise the mayor of Alice Springs here; it's great that you've joined us in the Senate. I bet that you and your council and your state government know about this issue. This government knew about this issue. It's known about this issue for three terms, for nearly 10 years, and, in just a matter of weeks, they're going to line up, and they're looking for us to re-elect them to have another crack.

Here we are at the very last day that the Senate is sitting. So urgent is this need, which has been known to the government for a decade, that they finally get the car into gear and bring a piece of legislation in here. It's beautifully titled because, with a government that's all about marketing, the title matters. Forget about the substance; it's the con job from the top—from Mr Morrison, whose character was revealed in this chamber last night by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. She knows him. The longer that guy hangs around, the more Australians are learning about him. The ultimate con artist. The ultimate marketeer. He's not a man for leadership and not a man of integrity.

This is what he has called it: Treasury Laws Amendment—well, it has got to come from the Treasury department—(Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill. Doesn't that sound good to people who can't afford their insurance? They think: 'Oh great! The government are going to come and rescue us. Because I can't afford $2,000, $4,000 $6,000 or $8,000—because I can't afford from $2,000 to $8,000 to insure my house—the government are charging in, albeit belatedly, on their white horse at the last minute and they're going to make it possible for me to insure my house.'

An honourable senator: But they've missed the battle.

Senator O'N EILL: They've missed the battle—absolutely. They've missed the battle for sure. But do you know what else? They're riding in on a horse that's a pretence. When you start look at the fine print in this piece of legislation, about who might be eligible to get some bit of assistance with their insurance, you see it shrink and shrink and shrink. That's the problem.

Senator Watt made a fantastic contribution yesterday. I also acknowledge Senator Chisholm. They fight here every day for the people of Queensland. They talked about the market failure. They talked about outsourcing of government responsibility, to make policyholders pay and pay for what has been emerging in the last several years as a failed market. I believe it was Senator Watt who drew my attention to the fact that this legislation indicates that people with the most acute cost pressures might just might get something. If you're one of those lucky few who are subject to what needs to be classified as cyclone damage—not flood damage; that's not included, although that's part of what will be implied by the marketing man who is no leader—you might get something. If you're one of those few lucky ones, at the very, very best you might get 46 per cent. That's the line that goes out from the government and that's what we hear here day in, day out: the con job. 'What's the biggest way we can gild this lily and pretend we're actually caring for the people of Australia?' It's all announcement and no delivery.

They're bringing this bill in at this point in time and, as little as it is and as little as it does, Labor will support it because people need something. They absolutely, desperately need something, and, if this is the best that this government can do, we're not going to stop the people of northern Australia getting the relief that they can get—that small bit. But we've got no confidence in what the government have told us. We know that, despite the press release and the numbers that they put out, the fine print reveals a different story. In fact, the claims that they make and the numbers they put out are really just pulled out of the air. They can't produce the modelling. Remember when you were at school and the kids who were fantastic at maths went on to be actuaries? They do their job for the country. They tell the truth. They write the numbers. They do the sums and they figure out what it's going to cost. That's modelling. The government claim they have it. They also claim that it's not in the public interest for you to know what's in that modelling. It's breathtaking. It's the art of a conman and trickster. That's what happens when you have a man who's leading the country by PowerPoint and marketing plan, without an ethical bone in his body and with no moral compass, integrity or ability to tell the truth to the people of Australia. The people it's going to hurt are the people who will be sold this false promise by this government—people in the north.

I tell you who else is struggling today: those people in Lismore. We all know that the Prime Minister doesn't hold a hose when the fires are burning. I will acknowledge that the Prime Minister had COVID in the time that Lismore was suffering worst in recent weeks, so we'll give him a leave pass for that. But surely he could have sent someone from the government. He has a Treasurer. He has a whole raft of ministers who could have done the job of going to Lismore, seeing what was really going on and giving people hope, heart, comfort, resources and a plan. They talk a big game for business, but they fail to deliver.

It took Mr Morrison nine days. People's houses were awash, with mud-stained walls. Three thousand houses, I believe, were declared unfit for habitation, in a community where rents are going through the roof and the market is already very small. The need was desperate on every single level. Instead of sending somebody, Mr Morrison hung on and then hung on a bit more until nine days later, when he could show up and do a photo-op. What did he actually deliver? He shut a few roads so that he wouldn't have to meet the community. He's a Prime Minister who is running from responsibility, and he should run fast and hard because he's incapable of leading us in the way that we deserve. He's incapable of leading for people who are profoundly vulnerable right now in Lismore.

There's a contrast. We have amazing people at state level in the Labor Party. I've been waiting for the Prime Minister to come out with some sort of plan that would be digestible for the people of Lismore, to give them hope and to actually provide money, resources and targeted, planned support for businesses. Businesses in regional communities are the heart of the community—no businesses, no jobs. Labor understands that. You need great jobs that pay and businesses that are successful. All that can work together in an ecosystem when it's properly supported by a government that doesn't waste and rort money and buy seats for itself.

When Mr Minns, the Leader of the Opposition, went up to Lismore, he had a flood response plan. We haven't heard that from the government of Australia, with all its resources. It's practical in nature, because all the weasel words, all the magic words, all the marketing words and all the pretence of the Prime Minister cannot actually meet the reality of ordinary Australians. They needed a plan, and this is what a plan might sound like. Mr Minns said: 'What do families and businesses need? They need the waiving of local and state government fees and charges for those impacted by the flood.' Mr Morrison says: 'Oh, it's not my responsibility. We're talking about local and state costs.' But where's his conversation with the state to say, 'I know that you're going to have a big financial burden there, so how can the government of Australia help you?' That hasn't happened. Mr Minns said, 'Waive or defer payroll tax for small businesses in flood affected areas'. I'm pretty sure, having grown up in a family business and continuing to have a business with my husband, that, if I were in Lismore and I were inundated, that would be good news to hear. What can Mr Morrison do about it? Hands off. Do nothing. Pretend.

Perhaps somewhere down the track, if he's elected again, at five minutes to midnight we will get another bill like the one that we're debating today: wholly inadequate, full of contradiction and unable to be verified because of a failure to release modelling. If we're lucky, that's what we might get from Mr Morrison and his climate deniers. That's where we are, Australia: at the tail end of a decade of denial of climate realities.

You can only pretend for so long before the game's up. Well, the game's up, the time's up and Mr Morrison's time is absolutely certainly up. It's time to elect a decent government that will stand for all Australians—a government that, when you are in need, you can count on to deliver the basic things you need to get back on your feet and have a little bit of hope. We are capable of doing that as a nation, but not with this party in government and not with the soulless, heartless, valueless Mr Morrison in charge.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:20): I rise to contribute to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022, a bill that is being debated when we are seeing the effects of the climate crisis before our very eyes. The climate has changed. These floods that we have experienced and witnessed—and that, sadly, many have lost their homes and their livelihoods as a result of—have been fuelled by the climate crisis.

I take the opportunity today to contribute to this debate because something extraordinary happened in this place yesterday: the Environment and Communications References Committee was forced to make an interim report about the conduct of a US company. This was part of the inquiry into the Beetaloo basin. This US company, Tamboran, has just in the last month received $7.5 million in public money from the Morrison government. This company—which has a wholly owned subsidiary, Sweetpea Petroleum, registered to a notorious tax secrecy jurisdiction in Delaware—is now involved in getting public money from the Morrison government to frack in the Beetaloo basin.

As part of the Senate inquiry into the Beetaloo drilling program, the committee wrote to this company on three occasions, inviting them to appear and to answer questions in light of receiving this public money. With the first two requests, the company replied, saying they did not want to appear. The last request invited them to reconsider, and there was a delay in the response, but they again refused and made the claim:

… we understand we are absolutely entitled not to appear if we wish.

Let me be very clear about this. A Senate inquiry asked a company that is in receipt of public money to appear before us at a hearing to answer questions, and this company says it doesn't have to come. The committee then resolved to issue a summons to compel this company to attend.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): Senator Smith on a point of order?

Senator Dean Smith: Can I confirm that we're debating the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022? If Senator Hanson-Young wants to make a contribution in regard to a Senate committee report, there are opportunities later in the day to do that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I draw you to the debate in question in relation to the Treasury laws amendment bill.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I appreciate that. The reason this is being put on the record today is that there will be changes to the sitting schedule later and I just want to make it clear that this relates directly to this bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Smith on a point of order?

Senator Dean Smith: I think we conduct the business based on the Red that is before us. As to whether or not what Senator Hanson-Young is speculating about is accurate, we will have to wait to see, but the matter before you in the chair is the Treasury laws amendment bill, not consideration of a committee report.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, in fairness, I think Senator Smith does have a point. I have given you indulgence to speak at the end of this debate, and I draw you back to the subject matter at hand.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It is related to this piece of legislation because what this company is doing is making climate change worse. What this company is doing, with taxpayers money, is making climate change worse, and our job here in the Senate is to scrutinise and to hold government to account, and to hold those who take and are in receipt of public funds to account. It is absolutely disgraceful that a company, despite being given a summons, refuses to appear.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): Senator Smith, on a point of order?

Senator Dean Smith: I'm prepared to match Senator Hanson-Young's persistence with my persistence, so if we'd like to continue in this fashion, toing and froing, then I'm happy to oblige.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I think we've traversed this issue. I've made my point clear. I really do think that, unless you are speaking on this piece of legislation, I would invite you to draw your comments to a conclusion.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: The conclusion, at the end of this debate on this bill—a bill that is spending public money and asking for public money to be spent on cleaning up in response to the climate crisis—is that here we have a company that refuses to comply with a summons. Let me be very clear here: this is a bad precedent for any company, for any process, for this Senate to not take seriously. I would appreciate it if the Senate were actually to give proper time to debate and discuss this matter, because it is about the powers of this place. So I will conclude my speech here, but let me say—it's a message to the government and to the opposition—please, give us some time this afternoon to make sure we can discuss this properly. Otherwise, the powers of the Senate are useless.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (11:26): Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022 will establish a reinsurance pool for cyclones and related flood damage. The pool is backed by a $10 billion annually reinstated Commonwealth guarantee.

Access to affordable insurance is vital to the economic prosperity and resilience of Australians who live and work in northern Australia. This bill will deliver on the government's commitment to maximising northern Australia's potential and to ensuring that Australians in cyclone prone areas have access to affordable insurance. The bill will improve the accessibility and affordability of insurance for households and small businesses with cyclone and related flood damage risk by reducing the cost of reinsurance. This is estimated to reduce premiums by $2.9 billion and cover more than 800,000 household, strata and small business property insurance policies in northern Australia.

The pool is also expected to increase competition by encouraging greater insurance participation, greater insurer participation in cyclone prone areas and support higher levels of insurance coverage for property owners. The savings generated by the pool will be targeted at policy holders with medium to high exposure to ensure that northern Australians facing the largest insurance affordability pressures receive the greatest benefits from the pool.

Following a direction from the government, the Australian Competition and Consumer Competition, the ACCC, has begun work to monitor and collect data to ensure that savings are passed on to policy holders and that the reinsurance pool is delivering on its intended outcomes. In addition, the Treasury will undertake a 12-month review of the pool.

Finally, I would like to thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill and for their recommendation that the bill be passed. I commend this bill to the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (11:36): I move the second reading amendment circulated in the name of Senator Watt:

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

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer by no later than 1 April 2022:

(i) the cat modelling or any other modelling provided to the Government during the consultation process for the establishment of the cyclone and related flood damage reinsurance pool, and

(ii) any other documentation that shows the figures used to make claims by the Government that savings or cost increases for insurance consumers will be achieved by the introduction of the cyclone and related flood damage reinsurance pool; and

(b) if the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (11:44): by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (33) on sheet 1559 standing in my name, together:

(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit "related", substitute "flood".

(2) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), omit "related", substitute "flood".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 11), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 18), after section 127F, insert:

127G Civil penalty for contravening section 8AA of the Terrorism and Natural Disaster Insurance Act 2003

A person commits a separate contravention of this section for each calendar year during all or part of which the person fails to comply with subsection 8AA(1) of the Terrorism and Natural Disaster Insurance Act 2003.

Note: That subsection requires most general insurers to reinsure specified flood risks with the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation. It also applies to syndicates of Lloyd's underwriters, and to unauthorised foreign insurers, who choose to reinsure such risks with the Corporation.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 20 and 21), omit the item, substitute:

2 Title

After "acts,", insert "cyclone damage and flood damage,".

(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 25), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4, omit the definition of cyclone reinsurance contract in section 3, substitute:

cyclone or flood reinsurance contract means a contract of reinsurance that the Corporation enters into as reinsurer under Part 2A.

(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4, omit the definition of cyclone reinsurance scheme in section 3, substitute:

cyclone and flood reinsurance scheme means:

(a) the scheme operated by the Corporation in performing its function under paragraph 10(b) (cyclone and flood damage reinsurance); and

(b) any other activities the Corporation undertakes for the purposes of performing that function.

(10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 29), after the definition of eligible cyclone loss in section 3, insert:

eligible flood loss means a loss arising from a flood (as defined by subsection 34(1) of the Insurance Contracts Regulations 2017 for the purposes of paragraph 37B(2)(a) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984), other than a flood caused by a weather system in relation to which a cyclone event is declared under subsection 8F(1).

(11) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 11), omit "related".

(12) Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (after line 17), after section 8A, insert:

8AA When flood risks must be reinsured with the Corporation

(1) If a general insurer carries on insurance business that includes undertaking liability, under pool insurance contracts, in respect of eligible flood losses, the insurer must maintain contracts of reinsurance with the Corporation that:

(a) cover the insurer's liability, under all pool insurance contracts that it enters into, in respect of all eligible flood losses; and

(b) insure against 100% of the insurer's liability, under each of those pool insurance contracts, in respect of all eligible flood losses.

Note: A pecuniary penalty may be imposed for a contravention of this subsection: see section 127G of the Insurance Act 1973.

(2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to a direction that is in force under section 38 and provides for the extent to which risk is to be retained by reinsureds under the relevant contracts of reinsurance.

(3) Subsection (1) has effect even if the general insurer has entered into a contract of reinsurance otherwise than with the Corporation.

(4) The Corporation may enter into contracts of reinsurance that insure against the reinsureds' liability, under pool insurance contracts, in respect of eligible flood losses arising on and after 1 July 2022.

Exception where premium income is below prescribed threshold in previous financial year

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a general insurer during a calendar year if the amount worked out under subsection (6) does not exceed the threshold amount prescribed by the regulations.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), the amount is the total gross written premiums that the reporting standard prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection would require the general insurer to report to APRA:

(a) in respect of the last financial year of the general insurer that ended before the start of the calendar year referred to in subsection (5); and

(b) for a class of direct business consisting of contracts of insurance:

(i) that the general insurer enters into as insurer; and

(ii) that are wholly or partly pool insurance contracts; and

(iii) under which the insurer undertakes any liability in respect of eligible flood losses (whether or not the contracts cover other risks) other than eligible flood losses arising at a place covered by a determination in force under subsection (7);

if such contracts were a distinct class of direct insurance business.

(7) The Corporation may, by notifiable instrument, determine areas where, in its opinion, the risk of eligible flood losses arising is so small as to be negligible.

One in, all in rule for exempt general insurer

(8) However, if a general insurer enters into a contract of reinsurance with the Corporation that insures against the insurer's liability under a pool insurance contract in respect of eligible flood losses, subsection (5) does not apply to the general insurer while that contract of reinsurance is in force.

How this section applies to a Lloyd's syndicate

(9) If a syndicate of Lloyd's underwriters enter into a contract of reinsurance with the Corporation that insures against their liability under a pool insurance contract in respect of eligible flood losses, then, while that contract of reinsurance is in force, subsections (1), (2) and (3) apply to:

(a) the syndicate; and

(b) each Lloyd's underwriter who is a member of the syndicate, when acting in that capacity;

in the same way as those subsections apply to a general insurer.

How this section applies to an unauthorised foreign insurer

(10) If an unauthorised foreign insurer enters into a contract of reinsurance with the Corporation that insures against the liability of the foreign insurer under a pool insurance contract in respect of eligible flood losses, then, while that contract of reinsurance is in force, subsections (1), (2) and (3) apply to that foreign insurer in the same way as those subsections apply to a general insurer.

(13) Schedule 1, item 9, page 11 (line 24), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(14) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (line 2), after "cyclone", insert "and flood".

(15) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (line 5), after "cyclone", insert "and flood".

(16) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (line 24), after "cyclone", insert "and flood".

(17) Schedule 1, item 15, page 17 (line 7), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(18) Schedule 1, item 15, page 17 (line 20), after "cyclone", insert "and flood".

(19) Schedule 1, item 16, page 18 (line 2), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(20) Schedule 1, item 17, page 18 (line 6), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(21) Schedule 1, item 18, page 18 (line 8), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(22) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (line 12), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(23) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (line 16), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(24) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (line 17), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(25) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (line 26), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(26) Schedule 1, item 19, page 19 (line 7), after "cyclone", insert "or flood".

(27) Schedule 1, item 21, page 19 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:

21 Paragraph 38(2)(d)

After "insurance", insert "(except cyclone or flood reinsurance contracts)".

(28) Schedule 1, item 27, page 21 (line 2), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(29) Schedule 1, item 27, page 21 (line 4), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(30) Schedule 1, item 27, page 21 (line 15), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(31) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 21), after item 27, insert:

27A Application of section 8AA of the Terrorism and Natural Disaster Insurance Act 2003

(1) Subsections 8AA(1) to (3) and (5) to (8) of the Terrorism and Natural Disaster Insurance Act 2003, as inserted by item 9 of this Schedule, apply to a general insurer from the start of:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the 2024 calendar year; or

(b) if the total gross written premiums for the householders class of direct business, as reported to APRA:

(i) under the reporting standard prescribed for the purposes of subsection 8AA(6) of that Act, as so inserted; and

(ii) in respect of the last financial year of the insurer to end before 31 December 2022;

is less than $300 million—the 2025 calendar year.

(2) The following provisions of the Terrorism and Natural Disaster Insurance Act 2003, as inserted by item 9 of this Schedule, apply in relation to a Lloyd's underwriter or unauthorised foreign insurer from the start of the 2024 calendar year:

(a) subsections 8AA(9) and (10);

(b) subsections 8AA(1) to (3), as applying because of subsections 8AA(9) and (10).

(32) Schedule 1, item 28, page 21 (line 22), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

(33) Schedule 1, item 28, page 21 (line 24), omit "Cyclone", substitute "Natural Disaster".

These amendments have been circulated. I want to make it very clear that it would be more equitable for more Australians to get the benefit of cheaper insurance through a government not-for-profit reinsurance scheme, which is what these amendments propose. If passed, these amendments also mean it would be less administratively burdensome, because the amended bill wouldn't require insurers to distinguish between the risk of non-cyclone-related floods and the risk of cyclone related floods, and it wouldn't require them to seek private market insurance for non-cyclone-related floods. In other words, all reinsurance for all flood damage would be covered under this scheme.

So these amendments expand the scope of the scheme, they make it more equitable and they mean that more Australians would benefit through lower insurance premiums, which are only going keep climbing, because of the climate emergency that we are living in—the breakdown of our planet's climate—which is being turbocharged by this government. Not least of the ways in which they have turbocharged the climate emergency is in the budget they released last night, which contains about $10 billion per year to encourage the accelerated burning and extraction of fossil fuels! Make no mistake, the budget is a budget brought down by a government that is turbocharging the climate crisis.

I observe that every single dollar of those public subsidies to encourage the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is also supported by the Australian Labor Party. And what are we now about to see here in this chamber? Both major parties colluding to vote down these Greens amendments that would mean that more Australians get the benefit of a reduction in their insurance premiums as a result of nationalising reinsurance. As we move forward, we will see that more and more Australians need this benefit.

I'll conclude by making a prediction. At some stage, in the not too distant future, the Senate will be here doing exactly what this amendment does: it will be increasing the scope of this scheme until, ultimately—and this will be a great thing if it happens—this country nationalises reinsurance for all climate-related so-called natural disasters. That would mean that we nationalise reinsurance with regard to floods, with regard to rising sea levels and with regard to bushfires, and that can't happen quickly enough. It will happen one day, mark my words.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (11:48): I want to place on the record Labor's voting position on this amendment: Labor won't be supporting this amendment. But I want to reiterate some of the views I put during the second reading debate. It is not as though this government has not been warned by insurance companies for very many years about the risks posed by climate change to the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. In fact, after our second reading debate, I went upstairs and had a bit of a look, because I remember when IAG—back in 2006!— took a national leadership role, undertook research and put a very public position about what climate change would cost, what it would mean for premiums and what it would mean for the economy. And what did the Howard government do? What did the Abbott government do? What did the Turnbull government do? What did the Morrison government do? Absolutely nothing of substance to address climate change. And here we are, 15 years later—15 years after the insurance companies first started ringing the bell about what climate change would mean for premiums, what it would mean for communities and what it would mean for the economy. Here we are, even in this term of government, with report after report having been provided to this government—privately commissioned and publicly commissioned reviews about the costs and risks, the problems of underinsurance that arise from that and the economic challenges that that presents to communities, particularly in northern Australia. Here we are, probably in the very last day of the Senate sitting before the election, and the government are finally getting around to legislating their promise, but not with any data on the public record, of course, and not with any data on the table—they just all voted against putting on the table the data that underpins their policy decision—but wanting this Senate to support their position.

Well, we will support the legislation; we'll vote for it. We want the relief that is promised by the government to flow through to communities as quickly as possible. We don't intend to hold up this bill by supporting the Greens amendments. The Greens amendments are a very, very significant change indeed to the scope of the program that's proposed by government. They are of uncertain cost. We have no information about what the Greens' proposal would cost for the scheme, and we've got no information about what it would mean for policyholders and consumers. We're not prepared to hold up the bill. Labor would look at the inclusion of flood coverage as one of the terms in the statutory review that will already take place as a consequence of this legislation's passage, but we do not intend to vote for the amendments today.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (11:51): Can I just add one quick point as well? A few days ago, the Greens flagged their intention to move these amendments, and I want to put on the record that our spokesperson on these matters, the member for Kingsford Smith, Mr Thistlethwaite, wrote to the Greens, indicating that we thought that the extension of this pool to the flood areas was an idea worth considering. He wrote to the Greens, expressing that and asking them to advise us what the cost of such an amendment would be: What would be the cost to taxpayers? What would be the cost to insurance policyholders? You'll be shocked to know, Madam Chair, that the response from the Greens was: 'There won't be any cost.' Of course, that's Greens economics for you: you can do things, and they don't cost any money.

As Senator McAllister has indicated and as I indicated in my second reading contribution, we do think that it is worth considering extending the reinsurance pool to areas that suffer from floods, but I think that, if we're going to do that, we should have some idea of what it's going to cost. It's not surprising that the Greens don't think that's worth considering. We think the responsible way to proceed is to support the reinsurance pool as it is currently proposed and to consider this possible extension as part of the statutory review, when we can understand what the cost would be to the taxpayer and to insurance policyholders. I think it's very important that people understand why Labor has taken the position that it has.

I might just very quickly also note that it's disappointing that the second reading amendment that I moved was defeated by One Nation and the government. That amendment simply asked the government to come clean and release the modelling which they claim shows how much North Queenslanders will save as a result of the reinsurance pool. I asked Senator Hume to release this information at estimates, and amazingly she told the estimates hearing that it was not in the public interest for North Queenslanders to see the modelling that the government say they have about the savings that people will receive. That's why we moved the amendment, to try to get the government to release the modelling.

The government have been making all sorts of claims in the media about how much people will save, but they refuse to release the proof that they say they have. I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed that One Nation voted with them to stop that information being released. As I have mentioned many, many times in this chamber, One Nation love to run around North Queensland pretending they're on the side of battlers in North Queensland. What they've done here today is vote with their allies in the Liberal-National coalition to stop North Queenslanders being able to see how much they will actually save from this reinsurance pool. One Nation is now in on this with the government in saying that North Queenslanders can't be trusted to see the information that the government say they have about what people will save. That is very disappointing, but it is true to form, because we know, at the end of the day, that One Nation is just another arm of the LNP. And they've rolled over and backed their LNP mates once more.

Sena tor RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (11:54): I want to put on the record Labor's excuse for not voting for this bill and how their excuse is not supported by the communication and the discussion that the Greens had had with the Labor Party. In fact, Labor asked us: what would be the additional cost to government? We replied that there would be no additional cost. As was noted in the speech on the bill, the scheme has been designed to be cost neutral to the government over time because, basically, although this is government reinsurance changing who pays for the insurance, there will still be insurance purchased by people. It will reduce the cost of insurance from these massive events by, essentially, nationalising that insurance, but the cost is designed to be neutral over time. Expanding the scope of the scheme to include all flood damage wouldn't impact upon this objective. The Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation would price the additional flood damage risk on a cost-neutral basis.

Insurance is a really interesting representative of the issues that we are facing by living in a climate emergency, and the issues are not going to go away. The costs to Australian society and the costs globally of our climate emergency are going to continue to increase, and the reality of the floods that we have been experiencing over the past months are just an indicator of what we face in this country. It's not just flood damage from cyclones, as has been shown with the floods across Queensland and New South Wales in recent months. None of these would have been eligible for this insurance scheme because they're not cyclone related. But we know that the impact of the climate emergency is going to be increasing intensity and increasing frequency of flood events not just from cyclones but from those heavy downpours. Frankly the science shows why they are happening. It's because we have got a warmer climate and there is more moisture in the atmosphere, so there is more ability for these flood events to occur.

What we need—and this is the only way to be dealing with this—is for Australia to be playing its part globally, to be acting at emergency speed, to be safeguarding our future and to be reducing the damage from our climate emergency, and that means we've got to get out of the mining, the burning and the export of coal, gas and oil—full stop. That is what the science says. It's the only way that we're going to tackle the damage and the loss that is being felt by Australians and that is being felt around the world. Any government that is trying to delude themselves that there is any other way out is just that—deluded—and they are misrepresenting the situation to the Australian community.

It is very clear that we do not have a carbon budget left. There is no time to waste. We need to have an emergency shift and an emergency transition to get out of the mining, the burning and the export of coal, gas and oil. That is the reality that humanity is facing, and that's what this parliament needs to face up to. We need to work out how to do it in the way that best supports workers in that shift, and the Greens have got plans on the table as to how we would support workers who are currently working in those industries to be transitioned into new industries. We need to work out how to cope with the fact that there is already that climate change which is locked in. We're going to see floods, fires and other natural disasters due to the climate emergency continuing. Hence, measures like this reinsurance pool are important, but the reality is that they're not going to be enough. The only thing that is going to be taking the required action is to be getting out of the mining, the burning and export of fossil fuel, and both parties in this government need to realise that and need to be joining the Greens in taking the action that's required, if we are going to safeguard our future.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (11:59): I thank senators for that searing insight into what a Labor-Greens coalition might look like. Along with the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the government supports the passage of this bill without amendment and, therefore, will be opposing this amendment. Insurance affordability from cyclones has been a longstanding issue in the north of our country. The ACCC found that the main driver of high premiums in northern Australia was a higher natural hazard risk primarily driven by cyclones. Including all flood damage in a reinsurance pool would likely reduce the premium reductions available to residents in northern Australia, and we know that in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, flood reinsurance pools have required a levy to ensure financial viability. We will be opposing the amendment.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (33) on sheet 1559, moved together by leave by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (12:07): by leave—I move Australians Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1569:

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 26), after item 4, insert:

4A Subsection 501(2)

Omit "The Minister may", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the Minister may".

4B Subsection 501(3)

Omit "The Minister may", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the Minister may".

4C Subsection 501(3A)

Omit "The Minister must", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the Minister must".

4D After subsection 501(5)

Insert:

(5A) The Minister may not, under this section, cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the person:

(a) has resided in Australia for a continuous period of at least 10 years; or

(b) arrived in Australia from overseas when the person was less than 10 years old.

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 30), after item 5, insert:

5A After subsection 501(6)

Insert:

(6A) Conduct that was engaged in by a person when the person was less than 18 years old must not be taken into account in determining whether the person passes the character test.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments on sheet 1569, (1) and (2), moved together by leave by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (12:08): I move amendment (1) on sheet 1570, standing in my name.

(1) Schedule 1, item 26, page 20 (lines 15 to 20), omit section 41, substitute:

41 Review of Act

(1) The Minister must prepare a report that reviews the need:

(a) to extend the cyclone reinsurance scheme to cover loss or damage caused by any and all natural disasters, including bushfires, storms and hail; and

(b) for this Act to continue in operation.

(2) The report must be prepared:

(a) as soon as practicable after 1 July 2025; and

(b) at least once every 5 years after that day.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1570, revised, as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.