The PRESIDENT (09:31): Before I call the Clerk, I wish to make a quick statement. This week a historic occasion occurred in our Senate, with the presence of an Auslan interpreter for both Senator David Pocock's and Senator Shoebridge's first speeches. I would like to thank Michael Ferguson and the team at Broadcasting for their work.

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

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (09:32): I rise to again explain to the chamber the strong measures being undertaken by the Albanese government in response to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Indonesia. I welcome this opportunity to again inform the chamber about the range of strong measures the government is taking in response to this risk. As I've previously said, this is a serious situation that we now face in relation to not just foot-and-mouth disease but also lumpy skin disease, which has seen an outbreak in Indonesia as well. Accordingly, the government is treating this matter seriously.

As I've previously said, expert judgement has indicated that Australia faces an 11.6 per cent risk of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the next five years, with a higher risk, 28 per cent, of a lumpy skin disease outbreak. It is worth noting that these are not new risks. The last risk assessment conducted for foot-and-mouth disease, in March 2021, indicated that we already had a nine per cent risk of an outbreak here—not surprising when you consider that there are about 70 active foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks around the world at the moment.

With respect to the first component of Senator Roberts's motion—and as I previously conveyed to the chamber on Thursday 28 July—I am advised as follows: the exact number of doses for foot-and-mouth disease held in the vaccine bank is considered confidential information in the interest of national security, including to protect against bioterrorism threats. We hold enough vaccine doses in the vaccine bank to cover at least the first four months of a disease response, which gives us enough time to then order more vaccines. The vaccine manufacturer prioritises the production of vaccines for countries that are experiencing a disease outbreak, as you would expect. The Australian government has provided $1.5 million for Indonesia to purchase one million doses of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine. These are expected to arrive in Indonesia in the near future. While I accept that this may not be the answer Senator Roberts wants to hear, this information remains accurate, as it was when I provided it to the chamber last week.

With respect to the second aspect of this motion, I have listened, and will continue to listen, to the advice of experts, including Australia's Chief Veterinary Officer, regarding the government's response to foot-and-mouth disease, including with respect to vaccines. I note that the shadow minister, David Littleproud, said exactly the same thing when he was the minister for agriculture. When the outbreak first reached Indonesia, Mr Littleproud informed the public that he would listen to the advice of Australia's Chief Veterinary Officer. Sadly, it seems he abandoned that view when he went into opposition.

Should an outbreak occur in Australia, time will be needed to determine the extent of the outbreak and logistics for vaccination, if it is indeed agreed to vaccinate. I am advised that, for some outbreak scenarios, vaccination may not be used, and regaining disease-free status may be quicker without vaccination. These are complex issues, and I am being advised by the world's leading experts on the most appropriate approach. I am advised that the choice of vaccine is dependent on the strain of foot-and-mouth disease virus. For example, should we hold a prepared vaccine which was effective against the strain of virus in Indonesia, and a different strain of virus occurred in Australia, any prepared stocks may not be suitable. This is exactly why the vaccine bank contains a number of antigens which are effective against different strains of the foot-and-mouth disease virus. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the previous government. The most effective use of vaccines at the moment is in assisting our Indonesian neighbours in managing their outbreak. While Senator Roberts may not like these facts, these are the facts.

With respect to the final aspect of the motion, in direct response to the emergence and spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia, the Albanese government has strengthened biosecurity measures to protect Australia from a foot-and-mouth disease incursion. These include: for the first time ever, deployment of sanitation foot mats across all international airports in Australia for passengers returning from Indonesia; for the first time ever, declaration of biosecurity response zones in international airports in Australia which empower biosecurity officers with stronger powers than they've had before; biosecurity profiling of 100 per cent of travellers, including extra assessment for passengers who have recently been in Indonesia; 100 per cent screening of all mail items coming from Indonesia; redeploying biosecurity detector dogs to priority ports, like Cairns and Darwin; and one million vaccines to Indonesia.

It's worth mentioning—because this has been misreported before—that the redeployment of those biosecurity detector dogs to Cairns and Darwin does not mean that we don't have detector dogs in other airports; we do. Those airports were judged as requiring supplementary detector dogs. That's why the dogs have been relocated, and, as some people may have seen in the media this week, they're already doing a terrific job. Again, while I accept that these facts may not be what Senator Roberts wants to hear, these are the facts, and I'm not in the business of changing facts. I'll leave it for others to decide whether they want to do that.

The government takes the threat of foot-and-mouth disease extremely seriously. That's why we've taken unprecedented actions to protect Australia's biosecurity. We will continue to listen to evidence and the advice of experts, including the director of biosecurity and the Chief Veterinary Officer, to inform our evolving response.

Having dealt with the motion, I might just add a couple of other things by way of update. As I have said repeatedly, the response that the Albanese government has put in place to this outbreak is the strongest biosecurity response Australia has ever seen to a biosecurity threat. It is stronger than anything the former government put in place, despite the outbreak reaching Indonesia while they were still in power. No sanitation foot mats were placed in airports by the former government, despite the outbreak reaching Indonesia. No sanitation foot mats were even ordered by the former government, despite the outbreak reaching Indonesia. The former government did not declare biosecurity response zones in international airports at any point over the last seven years, despite them having had the power to do so for seven years and despite the fact that we've seen 70 active foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. That is followed by the range of other measures that this government has put in place, which the former government did not choose to do, despite its having the power to do so.

It is disappointing that One Nation and coalition senators continue to play politics with this issue, despite the repeated pleas from industry for them to drop their political activities and their politicisation of this matter. As I mentioned to the chamber last week, a number of industry leaders have come out publicly on this. Patrick Hutchinson from the Australian Meat Industry Council has said that Australia should 'absolutely not shut the border' to Indonesia:

The continual politicisation of biosecurity in the media is unhelpful.

Jason Strong from Meat and Livestock Australia said foot-and-mouth disease is 'one of those things you can make sound really bad' and that some of the recent commentary has been ' unnecessarily alarmist'. Ian McColl, the NSW Farmers Biosecurity Chair, said:

I see some people out there using this outbreak as a weapon to further their own ends, and frankly it's pretty disappointing. Farmers have argued for stronger, sustainably-funded biosecurity systems for years—this isn't something that's just happened overnight.

…   …   …

Those people out there suggested we need to slam shut travel to Indonesia don't understand that would only give a false sense of security, which could actually increase the risk of FMD coming from elsewhere.

…   …   …

Fanning the flames of fear will not help one little bit.

I would encourage subsequent speakers on this motion to reflect on those comments from some of our most significant livestock industry leaders. That's before we get to the comments that numerous farm and meat industry leaders have made supporting the government's response. Jason Strong from Meat and Livestock Australia said the federal government's response to date has been 'very coordinated and collaborative'. Patrick Hutchinson said:

AMIC is very supportive of the Australian government's measured response and believes such a response is necessary in order to maintain strong relations with Indonesia, who need to manage this outbreak with our assistance, not our intervention.

Fiona Simson, President of the National Farmers Federation, said, 'The NFF is working with the agriculture minister, Murray Watt, and the Australian government to make sure that we can do whatever it takes, whether it is in Indonesia or here in Australia, to make sure that we can stop the spread of this terrible disease.'

As I said, the politicisation of this matter is already damaging our international trade reputation. Senator McKenzie, among others, knows that because she, among others, has received the same calls I've had from industry leaders. But, unlike Senator McKenzie, I am listening to those industry leaders. It is ironic, and it's very telling, that Senator McKenzie and her colleagues only began to be interested in this issue after they lost the election. As I pointed out yesterday—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator McKenzie?

Senator McKenzie: The minister is reflecting on senators incorrectly, as usual.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm not sure I can uphold that point of order. I found the minister's comments very general. Minister, go on.

Senator WATT: As I pointed out yesterday, Senator McKenzie said absolutely nothing on social media or anywhere else about the outbreak until 19 July. She didn't say anything when the outbreak reached Indonesia, when she was still in government. She didn't say anything about it for another 2½ months, until 19 July.

Senator Roberts didn't comment on this matter publicly until 28 July, again playing politics. This demonstrates that the opposition and One Nation aren't serious about this issue and are only about playing politics. While those opposite continue to play politics, despite the pleas from industry to stop doing so, we are acting. We are acting in ways that they never did in their nine years in power. We have done more in nine weeks than the former government did in nine years, and we'll keep acting after this.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (09:42): I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's answer.

I have to say that the minister, Murray Watt, is so out of his depth with regard to this. He could have had more to say on the opposition benches, but, now that he's actually on the frontbench and he has to respond to this in his ministerial role, he's so far out of his depth. He lives on the Gold Coast. He's possibly never even looked a cow in the face. He's never birthed a calf. He wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Talking about advice, we've all been through the COVID pandemic. He says he's listening to the experts. Well, experts have actually shut down our country and stopped people from having jobs. He thinks that he knows best what's right for this country. He actually said yesterday that it is the strongest response by any government. Again, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

This has not been the strongest response that we've seen from any government to any biosecurity threat in our national history, as the minister said in this chamber yesterday. He's forgotten about the COVID-19 pandemic, where we actually closed the borders to protect our country from COVID. Apparently the minister has no knowledge of history: in Australia's response to the influenza epidemic a century ago, ships were quarantined, schools were closed and millions of vaccine doses were produced here.

In his efforts to deflect attention from his misleading the Senate, he's misled us yet again. Foot-and-mouth vaccines stored in the United Kingdom cannot be used to inoculate animals in Australia until they are brought to Australia. Bring them now. That needs to be done. He talks about how there are apparently one million vaccine doses. That is not enough for these figures: 74 million sheep, 26 million cattle, 2.6 million pigs and 1½ million dairy cows in Australia. We knew how many doses of COVID vaccine we had in the country. Why don't we know how many vaccines we have for the animals? Why isn't he telling us that? Oh, for security reasons. Why? I don't understand security reasons here. He doesn't want to be seen to have such a minimal amount of vaccines for the number of cattle, sheep and pigs in this country, because we have nowhere near the vaccines needed to protect us.

Let me also tell you that, if this gets out, we have over 24 million feral pigs in Australia. Probably none of you know that pigs are virus factories. When it comes to foot-and-mouth disease, they produce 3,000 times the quantity of the virus that a cow does. They're everywhere. National parks—you shut the national parks down. You haven't culled them; you've done nothing about the pigs. If the virus gets into the pigs, you actually have a real problem in this country. Then you've got the camels. We have over a million feral camels in Australia. We have about 2.3 million feral goats and about two million wild deer. All of these can be carriers of the virus. Yet you're not talking about this.

This is an important matter. The minister tells the chamber that he has support from these industries. The NFF? Really? Do they really support and speak on behalf of a lot of these farmers? I don't think so. They don't. I will tell you another thing. I just finished speaking with the dairy corporation here in Australia. They are really concerned about this. They said that, if it gets into the dairy herd, it's worse than it can be for beef cattle, because they will not be able to put dairy cattle on properties for three years. It is very hard to breed the dairy cattle that we need for the production of milk. It takes a lot longer. You have no idea of the damage that can be done to this country if we get foot-and-mouth disease in here.

Also, think of the exports. We are, regardless, clean and green. If we get foot-and-mouth disease in here, Japan and other countries won't take our produce. We will lose the dairy industry. Then there's the export of meat. But that's right up your alley—right up the Greens alley and probably the Labor Party's alley too. The fact is that you want to—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A point of order?

Senator Green: Deputy President, I ask you to direct the senator to direct her remarks through the chair. There've been a few opportunities this week for people to shout 'you' across the chamber. I don't think that's appropriate in this circumstance.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, please take note that your comments come through the chair.

Senator HANSON: Sorry, Deputy President, but my response has been nothing other than referring to what is before us on this issue. Anyway, they didn't like the fact that I'm referring to the Greens and the Labor Party; they haven't been supporters of the agriculture industry. Never. They haven't supported it. It's been One Nation and the coalition, with the National Party, that have really fought for the agriculture industry in this country. If it were up to those on the other side of this chamber, they would shut down our agriculture industry. They want to see dairy cows and beef cattle destroyed in this nation. They want to see emissions reduced, whichever way it comes about, because it's going to make them look good. Well, they're going to destroy our food security. This is a pathetic response from you. And I'm sick of hearing: 'But what did you do about it? You didn't speak about this.' What a ridiculous response that is. You're in government now and all you can do is throw it back: 'What did you do? What did you do?' It's like when I move into a house and the electricity bill isn't paid. Do you know what? I have to pay the bill if I want the electricity on. And I just go and do it. So it's got nothing to do with it—blaming the other side because of their response to it.

I'll tell you another thing. You say foot-and-mouth is around the rest of the world. That may be the case, but Bali is totally different to other countries, because cattle roam the streets; cattle shit on the ground. People walk in that shit. That shit is then brought back in their clothing and on their person, back into this country. There is a hell of a difference with what happens in Bali, so close to us. Bali is one of the biggest tourist destinations for Australians.

Yes, foot-and-mouth disease does need to be considered and looked at on the grounds of the damage it can do this country. The minister said yesterday, 'Well, if it gets into Australia'—if—'then we'll deal with it at the time.' That's going to be too late. Once it gets in here, we will have lost our biosecurity forever. We will not be able to eradicate the disease. You can't just say, 'Well, we'll compensate the farmers.' If that's your answer, then that's ridiculous. The Australian people have had a gutful of picking up the pieces with their tax dollars and with compensation and remuneration paid to so many people because of the bloody mistakes that were made in this place.

If we can close the borders to COVID, then we can close the borders to this disease until it is eradicated. Yes, by all means, we are fully supportive of stopping it from coming into Australia. But we also must ensure that it doesn't get here—and it can be brought in very easily. Actually, travellers can carry it up their nose, in their nostrils, for a period of 26 to 28 hours. It can be brought into the country that way. What is the problem with closing borders when we did it so easily for COVID? Why not for this? Why not, until it is eradicated or under control in Indonesia, for a short period of time?

Another question I must ask is: why aren't we giving heavier fines at airports for people bringing produce into this country? They make the excuse, 'Oh, I couldn't read English; me don't understand no English.' Yet we just wipe it and give them a chip: 'Oh, well, that's okay.' Or: 'No, my wife packed the suitcase; I didn't know what was in it.' Until we get serious about border security and start charging these people and really being hard on this matter, nothing's going to change, and we are taken like bloody fools and idiots—they can do and say whatever they want to do and say, and we just accept it.

The other side, Labor and the Greens, have no idea how serious this issue is. It is so important. It will destroy a lot of our farming sector—the cattle, the industry that we have. And I'd just like to say: if we're propping up Indonesia with this, I hope it is coming out of the foreign aid that we give them—the foreign aid that's well over $650 million. It was about $650 million. It could have been reduced to about $400 million. I'm not sure, but anyway, I hope this is coming out of the foreign aid that we give to Indonesia and is not another handout to them.

I'd like to say that One Nation does support this. And we have been cut back in our staff of course, saving moneys and everything like that—$1½ million to save moneys to the taxpayer—but you've just given $100 million to Ukraine; you've given $50 million to Sri Lanka; you've given moneys to the South Pacific. So, for us to actually do our jobs is extremely hard for One Nation— (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I give the call to Senator Nampijinpa Price.

Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (09:53): Thank you—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry—she caught my eye. I'll give you the call next.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, well, I accept the point. I'll give you the call and then come back to the other senator.

Senator GREEN (Queensland) (09:53): Thank you, Deputy President. I'm very fortunate to be speaking on this important matter in the Senate today and to be able to correct a few factual mistakes from the senator who's leaving the chamber, not caring to listen about the truth of what's going on. It's important for the facts to be laid on the table.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a point of order?

Senator Brockman: Mr Deputy President, as you well know, there's a very strong convention in this place that we do not reflect on whether senators are in the chamber or not or whether senators are leaving the chamber or not.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, the point of order is well taken. It's not appropriate to reflect on the absence of a senator or their leaving or coming into the chamber. I'd ask you to restrain yourself, Senator Green.

Senator GREEN: I accept that, but I do believe it's important to reflect on the interest shown by members.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's a fair point of order.

Senator McKenzie: I'd just like to make a note that the minister left the chamber prior to any response. So the senator is not going to listen to your ruling, Chair—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, we take the point. I've asked the senator to reflect on the comments. Senator Green, if you're reflecting on their interest in a broad sense, that's fine. To reflect on whether they're in the chamber or not is not okay.

Senator GREEN: I understood your ruling, and I will maintain that in the chamber here. It's important to reflect the facts that have been so clearly lost in the previous contribution. Members on this side care about the agriculture industry. In Queensland, we understand fully that 46 per cent of the national head of cattle are placed in Queensland. There are 11 million head of cattle in our home state, and beef manufacturing is the largest manufacturing sector in Queensland. We understand what is at risk. I don't know how many times those opposite have visited our beef manufacturing industries and spoken to workers in that industry, but I'm very, very aware—

Senator Davey: Some of us have actually worked there.

Sen ator GREEN: You've never known a manufacturing job you wouldn't want to casualise. We on this side of the chamber know that there is a lot at stake. That is why we are taking this issue incredibly seriously and ensuring that we deliver on the things that need to be done to make sure that we protect our beef industry in Australia.

We understand that, as Senator Hanson raised, there are many factors to this. The senator may be inclined to take up the report of the Senate Environmental and Communications References Committee from last year about our feral pig industry—I know Senator Roberts probably did have a read of that—because this is an issue where we need to do our research and we need to collaborate.

I would encourage the mover of this motion to accept the briefings from the minister, to work collaboratively with the minister, to ask the questions. I appreciate that this is an area of interest for Queensland senators who care about our industries, but we need to understand what the facts are and not listen to the people on the other side of the chamber who did nothing when it came to biosecurity, who did nothing to protect or prepare the resilience of our biosecurity measures. I am sure that the chamber will join—

Senator McKenzie: That's not true. I'm happy to go through the previous budget with you.

Senator GREEN: We know now that the members opposite are showing an interest in this issue, but for a very long time they didn't say anything about foot-and-mouth disease, they weren't interested in the facts. So now I'm here to correct the record, to make sure that people in Queensland understand that we are taking the steps to protect the industry and that we have been taking the steps to protect the industry since this started.

Now, let's remember that this outbreak began under the former government, and we are accepting our responsibility of stepping up as the new government. We know that on Thursday 21 July the minister facilitated a briefing on foot-and-mouth disease for the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That's how seriously we are taking this. We are working collaboratively with those who want to work collaboratively with us. Last week the minister hosted a briefing with officials, updating members of parliament—working collaboratively, making sure that people know the facts and understand where we're at. Just last Thursday, the minister also updated the chamber on the measures to protect Australian farmers.

In direct response to the emergence and the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia, the government is ensuring that we have measures in place to protect our industry. For the first time ever there is deployment of sanitation foot mats in international airports. For the first time ever, the declaration of biosecurity responses and zones have been put in place in international airports, and biosecurity profiling of a hundred per cent of all travellers, including extra assessment for passengers who have recently been in Indonesia is happening. There's a hundred per cent of screening on all mail items coming in, and we're redeploying biosecurity detector dogs to priority ports, like my home of Cairns, and in Darwin. Biosecurity is the responsibility of all Australians, including those who sit opposite.

I refer to the comments of the senator who spoke before me, Senator Hanson, with regard to fines for people who break the rules at airports and bring in items that are not allowed. Just this week a passenger coming back from Indonesia was heavily fined—a very expensive McMuffin, as it was referred to at the time. He was fined for breaking those rules, which shows that the system is working.

Unfortunately, while this government has sought to be constructive and transparent, making sure that briefings are happening and that people have the information they need, those on the opposite side have chosen to be unnecessarily political on an issue of grave importance for our country. I take this opportunity to remind those opposite that, while they are happy to accuse us of not caring about this issue, of not understanding the fact and of not appreciating how important our industry is, what they are saying isn't actually correct. We know that we are taking further steps. We are considering what actions need to be taken, we are implementing those actions and we are thinking ahead, because we need to be prepared. We are making sure that all options are on the table. We are considering how we prepare our industry for this threat. This disease is something that we need to work on together to oppose.

Farmers and the broader Australian community will be watching this place very clearly to see what is happening here. What we saw during COVID-19 in particular was an expectation from the community that the people in this place would work together to overcome threats to our health, our economy and our country. That is what the community expects now. The community, and particularly the agriculture industry, expect people in this place to work together. Of course, the hard questions should be asked. Senator Roberts, I understand why you are asking the questions and making sure that we are being transparent and accountable, but I would encourage you not to listen to the noise from the opposition—who literally did nothing when they were in charge—but to understand that this is something that we are taking incredibly seriously. We are making sure that when the minister is given advice he is sharing that advice with the people who need to understand what measures need to be put in place and he is then putting those measures in place. Unlike those opposite, the measures have been put in place. Under those opposite, there were no foot mats, no powers, no plan—nothing. When they were in power and there was an outbreak, no measures were put in place. But on this side of the chamber, when the minister understands the threat, he takes the advice and ensures that measures are appropriate, are constructive and are not alarmist, and he then puts those measures in place.

I know it's very uncomfortable for those to hear, but we do have the support of the agriculture industry—from the National Farmers Federation, and people who know this industry better—

Senator GREEN: I think it's fair—

Senator McKenzie: We all want you to be successful!

Senator GREEN: I take that interjection, and I ask the chair to bring the chamber to order so I can finish my contribution in the small amount of time I have to make it clear to all Australians that the agriculture industry supports the measures that this side of the chamber is taking. The industry is telling those opposite that they are wrong, that they are not helping, that making this a political issue is unhelpful to the problem and that it wants to see everyone work collaboratively and make sure that we do everything in our power to protect our important industries. That is what we on this side of the chamber are doing. That is what the agriculture industry is supporting right now.

We know that it is difficult to be over there on that side of the chamber. You're trying to find reasons to stand up and beat your chest, but the truth is that you didn't do anything when you're in power. You didn't have a chance. You didn't put in foot mats. You didn't put in biosecurity zones. We have taken that action. I'm sorry to say— (Time expired)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Before I call Senator Price, I will remind senators that interjections are always disorderly, and, if we could try and listen to the contributions of other senators without making interjections, that would be appreciated. I recognise that this is an emotive debate.

Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (10:04): I rise to support Senator Roberts's motion. I absolutely and utterly reject accusations that we on this side of the chamber are politicising this issue when this current government has sought to scrap the committee for northern Australia which deals with supporting issues exactly like this.

As a representative of the Northern Territory, I find it deeply insulting. It's insulting to suggest that such an important issue is something that we would play politics with. I would also like to remind the President—through the chamber—that, prior to being sworn in as a senator for the Northern Territory, I was very proudly part of a coalition announcement on 23 March that we were providing funding of $61.6 million to boost our biosecurity efforts in northern Australia, which would take our commitment to $1 billion. I also reject comments from Senator Whish-Wilson made yesterday. I certainly would not support his comments around the fact that we're behaving childishly in front of children in these chambers, given that they are a party that supports drug use and actually encourages our school leavers to smoke marijuana, noting the effects that that has in terms of marijuana induced psychosis. So I don't take to those sorts of comments very kindly, nor the government's accusations that we're not taking this issue very seriously.

Again, as a representative of the Northern Territory, I'm very, very aware of how important this industry is for the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, the cattle industry and related services industries contribute $1 billion annually to the Territory economy. There are 2.2 million cattle across 45 per cent of the Territory's land mass. The Northern Territory pastoralists manage up to 700,000 square kilometres of the land mass. The average Territory herd size is 8,000 head of cattle. The average Territory cattle property is approximately 3,000 square kilometres and, on average, around 600,000 cattle are turned off Territory pastures annually. And let's not forget the fact that the port of Darwin is the busiest live export port in the world. So these measures are very, very important. It alarms me that Minister Watt is more concerned about governing through social media than he is about governing through his portfolio, claiming that senators on our side of the chamber didn't make mention of this issue through their social media and that that is enough of an argument to show that we don't care. I reject that. I utterly and absolutely reject that.

I would also like to remind the chamber that, on 15 July, Minister Watt made the following public statement. He said, 'Foot baths are not particularly effective.' This is laughable considering that now they are claiming that they are the champions of foot baths. He went on to say: 'Often people have got more than one pair of shoes. The chemicals for effective foot baths are dangerous to human skin.' These are his very own comments made on 15 July. On 15 July, I happened to be at the Katherine show, speaking directly with members of our pastoral industry, who are gravely concerned about this issue and who, as a result of these comments, were extremely fearful that this government was not taking this issue seriously enough. They were so concerned.

And it is not us pushing this fear agenda; it was these very comments that sparked action by the pastoralists, members of the Northern Territory cattle association, whom I haven't heard the minister refer to at all as someone he's had consultations with. Perhaps he has, but he's failed to mention them in this chamber, probably because northern Australia isn't important to the government. Hence we had to move a motion yesterday to refer the scrapping of the committee to an inquiry. But his comments created a reaction whereby the pastoralists, the Northern Territory cattle association, then, at the showgrounds themselves, established foot mats for the purpose of demonstrating to this government—well, the fact that they really don't have a clue about the importance of this issue—that foot mats and foot baths are not dangerous to human skin. Comments were made to me directly that they were gravely concerned that we need to jump on this, that we need to bring to the attention of the wider community of Australians that citric acid is a naturally occurring acid. You can use it in your everyday households. But clearly the government doesn't have any idea about the fact that this could certainly be a biosecurity measure to support the industry and that it is an effective tool when used in this way and is not harmful to human skin—or to animal skin, for that matter.

I would like to give a reminder—obviously the minister is not here, but I'm sure he will catch up with these comments later—that it was these very comments, made on 15 July, that prompted the industry to demonstrate, out of fear and out of deep concern for the industry, that he was wrong and that they needed support. It demonstrated that the government was not taking this seriously enough. That was on 15 July. Since the minister is more concerned about governing through social media, he might want to join my Facebook page and view the post I made on 15 July about speaking to a vet who delivered a session on the biosecurity concern that day, at the show in Katherine, on the importance of this government acting promptly to deal with this issue.

So I will not accept that we on this side of the chamber and those of us who represent northern Australia and the interests of those within the industry are playing politics with this issue. We are gravely concerned, because it is our backyards that are in the direct firing line should this get out of hand. It is our backyards that will suffer. It is those within our industry. And we know this will have further effects within our industry. When our pastoralists, when our agriculturists, when our farmers are down on their luck, it's not just about the industry and how it'll affect the wider Australian economy. This is about people's livelihoods, this is about their lives, this is about their ability to care and look after their families. When people feel so destroyed under these sorts of circumstances, it can very well lead to issues such as suicide. We don't want to see that occur for anyone within our pastoralist industries, within our cattle industries. So I find it deeply insulting that it would be suggested that we're playing politics on this issue.

Again, I ask this government to take very seriously the issues relating to northern Australia. We need a voice in these chambers just like everybody else. We are affected by decisions made and decisions that aren't made by this government going forward. It is our responsibility to hold this government to account, and that is exactly what we are doing on behalf of these industries, on behalf of the little people and on behalf of those who would be affected.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): I saw Senator Roberts before I saw Senator Whish-Wilson, but, before I call Senator Roberts, I remind senators that, under standing orders, they shouldn't make reference to whether or not other senators are present in the chamber. Senator Chisholm, on a point of order?

Senator Chisholm: Yes. On the longstanding convention of the rotating of the call, the Deputy President acknowledged that earlier and gave the call to Senator Green over Senator Nampijinpa Price. I'd encourage you to reflect on that now.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Apologies, Senator Chisholm. I wasn't listening along to the Deputy President. Senator Brockman, are you going to debate the point of order?

Senator Brockman: No. I was interjecting disorderly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Indeed, Senator Brockman, that was disorderly. My apologies, Senator Chisholm, I take your point. I will give the call to you, then to Senator Roberts and then to Senator Whish-Wilson, if I'm still in the chair by then. Senator McKenzie?

Senator McKenzie: My understanding is that Senator Chisholm didn't stand to request the call.

Senator Chisholm: I did.

Senator McKenzie: You were standing for a point of order. It was Senator Ciccone behind you, Senator Chisholm, who stood for the call. Senator Whish-Wilson stood for the call and Senator Roberts stood for the call. Senators Davey, Brockman and McKenzie still want to make a contribution in the limited time we have in this debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm going to try and make everybody happy here, and I will undoubtedly fail. I did rule on giving the call to Senator Roberts first. I will do that because I gave it to him first. Senator Chisholm, I take your point: if you can seek to be quick on your feet next time. I'm giving the call to Senator Roberts now and then to whoever is next up. Senator Chisholm, a point of order?

Senator Chisholm: It's been pointed out to me that you also did a similar thing last night, in not rotating the call when it was appropriate. We've got form again today. It isn't acceptable for you to not rotate the call.

Senator McKenzie: Are you reflecting on the chair?

Senator Chisholm: I'm just making the point through a point of order—

Senator McKenzie: Are you reflecting on the chair?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I'll call you in a minute, if you are debating the point of order. Senator Chisholm?

Senator Chisholm: I'm urging you to reflect on that and rotate the call, as is appropriate, in this debate and as Deputy Presidents and Presidents have done.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Chisholm, I take the point of order. I am rotating the call around the chamber. We just had a contribution from a National Party senator. I'm now going to a One Nation party senator. If you are quick on the call next time, Senator Chisholm, I will get in your eyeline. Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:17): In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, my intention in advancing this motion was to protect the people's interests from the economic devastation that will result from foot-and-mouth disease if it enters Australia. There is no time to waste. It is a distinct possibility that, given the substandard response from this government, foot-and-mouth may be in Australia before the next sitting. Suspending standing orders to debate this matter today was essential, and I thank Senator Gallagher and the government for this.

Senator Whish-Wilson yesterday suggested that this matter could wait for discussion at the inquiry into the government's foot-and-mouth response. No, it can't. That's weeks away. We need to act now to get these vaccines into Australia.

I know the minister appeared on radio earlier this week and alluded to the 'scaremongering' coming from some people around this issue. It is not scaremongering to want to save the lifeblood of hundreds of communities in rural Australia. It is not scaremongering to want to preserve $80 billion in exports. It is not scaremongering to want Australia to provide our beautiful red-meat protein into the international market to feed the world. It is not scaremongering to want to protect the thousands of jobs, including union jobs in transport, that the livestock industry supports.

Why on earth did the Prime Minister give the job of agriculture minister to an accountant and lawyer from the city? That decision was a gross insult to the Australian agriculture sector. The minister's actions in his very first test show that the minister hasn't a clue. The minister misleads and uses false slurs to cover up his own deficiencies and to divert attention from his deficiencies.

The minister misled the Senate and the public when he answered my question on bringing vaccines to Australia just in case. The minister replied that this would cause Australia to be considered as 'having foot-and-mouth disease'—rubbish! Having the vaccines here is not considered having foot-and-mouth. Using them is, and clearly these vaccines would not be used unless we had an actual outbreak. I've repeatedly called on the minister to correct his reply, and he continues to ignore that request. Truth doesn't matter.

The minister misled the Senate when saying vaccine production had to wait until we knew the strain that had arrived in Australia. That specious reply ignores the likelihood that the strain we could have in Australia is going to be the same strain present now in Bali. If we're making vaccines for Bali, make some more for us and store those vaccines in Australia, ready for any outbreak that comes here from Bali. Minister Watt's answer ignores the simple question: if we need to know the strain before making a vaccine, what are the million doses of foot-and-mouth vaccine Australia is storing in the UK right now that he told us about?

The minister called into question my support for vaccines yesterday in another diversion. The minister was clearly not listening. In my question last Thursday, I did reassure the public that these vaccines are safe. The first thing I did in drafting my questions was to check that and to add the fact that it does look after people's safety. I have never spoken against vaccination. I have spoken strongly against, and will continue to speak strongly against, experimental gene based treatments for humans, with grossly inadequate safety testing. Experimental vaccine injections have caused so many horrendous human injuries and deaths the government has had to implement a compensation scheme. In contrast, the foot-and-mouth vaccine is not an mRNA gene based vaccine. It is a normal vaccine, a real vaccine. According to New Zealand health authorities, it's safe to consume meat and milk from a vaccinated animal.

So once again for clarity, before the minister misrepresents me again, I'm suggesting we get these one million doses of vaccine that we already own, and any others we need to produce for this strain, stored here in Australia, ready to vaccinate 48 hours after a foot-and-mouth outbreak occurs, should one occur. Taking this precaution will meet the procedure in the minister's own manual. It's on page 18 of the foot-and-mouth AUSVETPLAN edition 3 manual, in case the minister wants to look it up.

I asked the minister to explain why these vaccines are being stored in the UK rather than Australia. The minister has failed to explain this very strange decision, despite repeated requests. In the event of an outbreak, it will take seven days to get the vaccines here from the UK. Yet vaccination is supposed to start after 48 hours. After one week it will be too late. The livestock industry will be done for. He said he had tabled a response. He did, but it was scant and did not answer my basic questions. Was he really badly advised or did he lie? We need the truth. People need the truth. There are two issues now thanks to Senator Watt: foot-and-mouth and trust and truth, because of what he has done and not done and what he's said and not said.

The minister's briefing on foot-and-mouth last Tuesday appears to have made a factual error. It was in a casual reply, so I'm only going to mention this in passing. The comment was made that foot-and-mouth disease stays resident on hard surfaces for hours. The American College of Veterinary Pathologists briefing sheet on foot-and-mouth puts the residence period at one month. Between hours and one month, there is a hell of a difference—a huge difference. If it's indeed one month then the protocols we're following for foot-and-mouth need to be much stronger, more like the disinfectant protocols the government rushed to implement for COVID.

Some of these issues can be covered during the Senate inquiry. Vaccines, though, cannot wait. We must have them here now. We must have stronger airport screening now. How can it be that, after all these weeks the virus has been in Indonesia, we still have several international flights arriving directly from Indonesia all at the same time and then no flights for hours? If you do not have the staff to check every passenger from infected areas, Minister, here's an idea: work with the airlines to stagger their arrivals so we can screen every single person.

I have no confidence that this minister, in being in charge of the department, is working from a set of protocols that are designed to stop foot-and-mouth. Rather, these protocols seem to be about looking as if government tried to stop foot-and-mouth. Perhaps this has something to do with the Left's policy to reduce livestock to save on carbon dioxide production. A 43 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide output below 2005 levels by 2030 must include substantial reductions from agriculture. I'll speak to this absolute nonsense, this garbage, on many occasions in the years ahead. For today, let me say that cows are not climate vandals. Graziers are wonderful custodians of the land, as Senator Nampijinpa Price just pointed out. The government is not a wonderful custodian of the land.

I'm aware there is work that suggests that foot-and-mouth will not spread amongst feral pigs and other feral animals that can get foot-and-mouth because of the sparse population. What utter rubbish! These researchers-for-hire clearly have not been to the national parks I've have been to. Nobody in the government seems to care that infestations of pests in national parks encroach on farmland, putting hardworking farmers under enormous strain, when all they want to do is grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Why the political Left want to stop farmers feeding and clothing the world is beyond me—and it's clearly beyond Senator Nampijinpa Price. I know your climate gods need the ritual sacrifice of farmers to reach a target that makes no scientific sense, no moral or ethical sense, no human sense. And, really, how can rewilding productive farmland be more desirable than feeding and clothing the world and the people on our planet?

This agenda dovetails very nicely with Premier Andrews's recent agriculture bill, which allows the Premier to declare quarantine on part or all of rural Victoria based on the threat of a disease outbreak. Animals can be culled on the threat of getting a disease. Farmers can be told what they can and can't produce. Lockdowns can be hard border lockdowns extending for years. Victoria is coming for their graziers in the name of sustainability. All it will take is one disease outbreak. What could that outbreak be? If every rural media outlet in the bush is not getting onto their local Labor member or Greens candidates and asking them, 'What is the go here?' then I don't know why they're not doing it.

There's a story here. It's a story that is so much more than an inexperienced minister with no knowledge of his portfolio tripping over the first hurdle. It's more than a minister who refuses to accept he's made a mistake and, as a result, refuses to fix it. That's not honest. It's more than Australian farmers being thrown under the sustainability bus by wealthy city dwellers anxious to make others pay for their climate religion. It is about the very future of our Australian agricultural sector, and that's terrifying.

Minister Watt made this an issue by misleading the Senate. Quoting others about foot-and-mouth disease does not change a thing with what's happening with the government. Continually derailing the discussion and diverting the discussion onto what other people are doing or not doing does not answer questions. It shows the man lacks accountability and responsibility. And I will continue to do my job for the people. I've been elected by the people—not the people that Senator Watt quoted.

It's easier to get a human being vaccinated in this country than to get a cow vaccinated. We have one flag above this parliament. We are one community and we are one nation. Labor, in its policy on foot-and-mouth disease, is a clear and present danger to agriculture.

Se nator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:27): I do have a lot of respect for Senator Roberts in this place, but I must say that some of the line of questioning that's been put to my friend Senator Murray Watt as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is quite questionable. It's fair to say I don't agree with the line of inquiries that Senator Roberts has put to Minister Watt. It is important to note that Minister Watt, time and time again, for the last two weeks in this place has been open, has been honest and has put all the facts on the table in this chamber, before all senators, before the Australian people—and not just here in parliament but outside this building as well—on numerous occasions. But, with the greatest respect, I think Senator Watt has tried to answer Senator Roberts's questions and no doubt will continue to answer his questions as they come to him.

The Australian government is not pretending that this is an easy issue. But what we have said for the last two months that we've been in power—and it is important to always put things into context; context is so important in this place. It is so interesting to see that those opposite, particularly the opposition, have all become experts in foot-and-mouth disease. For 9½ years, they had many opportunities to fix our biosecurity arrangements, particularly around how we fund biosecurity in this country. I know Senator Whish-Wilson has been a longstanding member of the rural and regional affairs and transport committee, which has held several inquiries into all things agriculture, and I look forward to his contributions later this morning. The government of the day failed to seriously address the issues.

This is not just Labor saying this. This is not the Australian Greens saying this. These are peak bodies from agriculture, like the National Farmers Federation. Supposedly, those opposite don't represent farmers now, but they did 2½ months ago. GrainGrowers have come out and congratulated this government for finally establishing an inquiry into biosecurity. AgForce have come out and congratulated this government on finally doing something about addressing the inadequacies of our biosecurity funding arrangements. There is a list of other peak bodies around the country—cattle, the Red Meat Advisory Council and so many others that, quite frankly, I could spend the next seven minutes of my time listing them.

We hear from those opposite that there are some farmers who are quite concerned: yes, and rightly so. But it hasn't helped that those opposite have created a bit of a political campaign for their own internal purposes. They have created this hysteria, this panic, this sense that the sky is going to fall in if we don't do something now, without actually being honest with the constituency that they claim to represent—Australian farmers—about the fact that we are actually doing something. The Australian government is actually doing something to address the foot-and-mouth disease threat. Touch wood, we have not had that outbreak here in Australia, and we are working very strongly with our friends in Indonesia, particularly in Bali, to ensure that foot-and-mouth disease does not come into this country.

It is also worth putting this on the record about these foot mats. The opposition talk about these mats like somehow they're going to stop everything from coming into the country. If they were so concerned about these sanitation foot mats—not foot baths too, for the record, Deputy President, but foot mats—why didn't they put an order in and actually bring these foot mats into the country? Just like with the vaccine rollout that we had during COVID, you can't expect these foot mats to just arrive overnight at our front door. You've actually got to plan and put the orders in to get these mats from overseas. We don't actually have a domestic manufacturing sector in this country anymore; therefore, we can't produce these mats in the country, so we are reliant on overseas supply chains.

What did the National Party do for 9½ years, when they had the portfolio of agriculture, in terms of these foot mats? Nothing. Same old business: 'Wait till an outbreak occurs, and then we'll see and assess what the situation is.' They had the opportunity to actually address the concerns that they are now raising and blaming this government for. This government has only been in for two months and is now trying to fix their mess, which they have left us with.

It's important to put the facts on the table. Having the vaccines—well, we do have enough vaccines to address the initial shock should that virus get into the country, but I think it's also important to get the vaccines overseas into Indonesia, where there is a threat to our agriculture industry. I'm not going to cop the scaremongering, the political stunt, that the opposition—the National Party particularly—have collectively put on today in this place, and neither are other Labor senators.

It is interesting to ask the question: when are the opposition going to listen to the experts? The experts that they relied on when they were last in government are now criticising them. When are you, as the opposition, going to listen to the same experts that government is relying on and listen to the peak bodies—the National Farmers Federation and the many other peak bodies—that have said: 'Labor, you are doing the right job. You are doing what we have been calling for: consulting, working with Indonesia, working with industry'—

Senator O'Sullivan: You're too slow!

Senator CICCONE: I'll take the interjection from across the aisle that we've been too slow. We haven't been too slow. We've actually been doing what industry expects of us and what industry has actually called on us to do, and we now have the strongest biosecurity measures ever in the history of Australia. So well are our measures working that foot-and-mouth has not arrived here. In fact, we picked up a traveller recently, as senators across the aisle would know, who had a dodgy cheeseburger. So well are our measures working that people are saying, 'Yes, we do have products that we should not be bringing into this country.' We've now got new ads on aeroplanes warning travellers to Australia that, should they arrive here with such products, they will receive a hefty fine. Someone who is bringing back a Big Mac or a Happy Meal will cop a $2,600 fine because they brought in some products they should not have brought into this country. Again, Senator Watt should be commended for the work that he has been doing, his department has been doing and our biosecurity officers have been doing to protect our borders and our agriculture industry, because it is so important that we protect our agriculture industry.

I also put on the record that we are now screening every single piece of material—mail, that is—coming from Indonesia and China. That should also be noted in this place. We've also reviewed the import permits of Indonesian products that may carry foot-and-mouth disease. The Australian government is now providing direct support to the Indonesian government to purchase vaccines to control the outbreak over in Indonesia. We also acknowledge that Meat & Livestock Australia deserve additional funding. That is why we are providing the additional funding that it deserve to help coordinate industry's response to the outbreak.

There is advice about our biosecurity responsibilities that I also want to flag in this place today. New biosecurity laws were enacted back in, I think, 2016, yet this is the first time an Australian government is using them. The same powers that the Liberal and National parties had but chose not to use in 2016 are now being used by the Labor government for the very first time. When those opposite had the chance to actually fix the mess that our biosecurity arrangements were in, they did absolutely nothing. That is why I'm so very proud that this Senate, with the support of many in this place, agreed to my motion to have an inquiry into our biosecurity arrangements, and I look forward to working with all senators in this place to actually address our biosecurity arrangements once and for all.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education and Assistant Minister for Regional Development) (10:37): This is a very serious issue that we are confronting.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator Chisholm. Senator Whish-Wilson, I will allow you to make the point of order, anticipating what it is.

Senator Whish-Wilson: It would be nice for you to listen too, Madam Acting Deputy President. I've been on my feet three times now and I haven't had the call. I know that's at your discretion, but the Labor Party have spoken, you've been to the other side of the chamber; I think it would be fair for you to allocate the Greens a spot in this.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I take your point. I did see Senator Chisholm first that time and I'm giving him the call.

Senator CHISHOLM: This is a very serious issue that the country confronts, and Minister Watt has been detailing the thorough and urgent actions that he has taken as the minister responsible in the Albanese government. But it's also 'exhibit A' in evidence that the opposition have learned nothing from this election campaign. The way they have come into the chamber today and the way they have done this over the first two weeks of sittings show that they have learnt nothing from the election result. They've also observed nothing over the last three years in how the Australian people react to these sorts of issues.

With the opposition, all we have seen is politics. They have played politics with this issue consistently since they've been in opposition and they have actually done nothing constructively, have offered no solutions, to help the country get through it. I think it goes to show that they've learnt nothing from their time in government and nothing from the election campaign, and they're going to continue on. Well, we are not going to fall into that trap. We are going to do the right thing by the Australian people. We're going to act in the national interest, and we are also going to do the right thing by the country and work collaboratively with the industry as well. There have been numerous quotes that my colleagues have raised about them being supportive of the action that we are taking. But we all remember what the government was like. We all remember that they were rejected at the last election campaign because, on any issue that confronted them, they always played politics with it. It was always politics first; the national interest played a very distant role in that regard.

Minister Watt has continuously answered questions in this chamber, answered questions through the media and explained the actions that this government is taking to deal with this issue. It's really disappointing that the opposition, teaming up with One Nation, have learned nothing from the last election campaign and are going to continue to play politics with this issue when we actually need a national response to this with everyone working constructively together and putting the national interest of the country first.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:40): Again, I ask senators to reflect on the fact that, when this debate started this morning, in a committee room only 50 metres away those who were interested were receiving evidence from department officials as to exactly how they are conducting their response into both the varroa mite outbreak in New South Wales, which is very serious, and the measures put in place to reduce the risk of a potentially very serious foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. I'd also like senators to reflect on the fact that I understand that it's important to put pressure on the government, to needle them, to make sure there's transparency, so they know they're being watched closely in acting to do everything they possibly can. That's a critical part of politics, but it's sounding to me in this chamber this morning, when we've had debate ranging from marijuana psychosis, through to mad Mal's vaccine denial and a whole range of other—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, please refer to your colleagues in the appropriate manner.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: vaccine denial—I withdraw that comment.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I have Senator Scarr on his feet. Was that on the point of order I ruled on, Senator Scarr?

Senator Scarr: My point of order is with respect to a fellow senator from Queensland. I think Senator Whish-Wilson should specifically withdraw the comment in relation to Senator Malcolm Roberts.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He has withdrawn that, Senator Scarr.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I did specifically withdraw that comment. I'll say: Senator Roberts's and One Nation's vaccine denial, as pointed out by the minister yesterday, is hardly the political party you want to be taking advice from. There has been a complete disregard of experts and there have been the comments that somehow the experts who have given evidence to senators and MPs about the risk of this being spread by a feral species are scientists for hire—really? It's almost sounding like the opposition wants some kind of foot-and-mouth outbreak so they can make political advantage out of it, which I think is appalling. I think it is absolutely appalling. You would be forgiven for thinking, if you'd listened to the quality of debate we've had from these people on the other side of the chamber yesterday morning and this morning, that actually they want an outbreak in this country so they can turn it to their political advantage.

It has been pointed out continually that this kind of fearmongering, raising anxiety and alarm, is not helping anyone; it is counterproductive. I'm all for holding a government to account. The Senate is going to do that. The National Party and Liberal Party will be chairing that inquiry. We will look at this very closely, but do not make this situation worse to your own political advantage. (Time expired.)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the Senate take note of the explanation provided by the minister.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:02): by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Wong for today, on account of parliamentary business; and

(b) Senator Stewart, from 22 August 2022 to 29 January 2023, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Senator TYRRELL (Tasmania) (12:02): by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Lambie for today, to attend a hearing in Hobart for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Question agreed to.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:03): I move:

That—

(a) government business order of the day no. 3 (Governor-General's Opening Speech—Address-in-reply) be considered from 12.15 pm today; and

(b) general business notice of motion no. 20 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young relating to corporate tax and cost of living be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:03): by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator McDonald for today, on account of parliamentary business; and

(b) Senator Payne, for 3 and 4 August 2022, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:04): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:24): As I was reflecting upon this government's agenda when I began this contribution the day after the Governor-General had given his speech—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): Sorry, Senator Rice. Senators, could you please keep the tone down as you are moving out of the chamber. I'm finding it difficult to hear Senator Rice.

Senator RICE: I was reflecting on four key elements of the Greens agenda, which are reflected to some extent in this government's agenda as well, and contrasting the ambition. In particular, I want to talk about First Nations justice, about climate, about nature and about inequality.

I will begin with First Nations justice, which has got to be at the heart of everything that we are doing in this place. It is good to see the increasing attention to First Nations justice that this parliament has, compared to the previous one, but it is still not good enough. We need to be centring rights, justice, truth-telling and treaty, as well as a voice to parliament, at the heart of everything we do and to be viewing, through a lens of First Nations justice, all of our considerations in this place. We need to remember at all times that we are working on stolen land. This is stolen land. Here in this place, we are on Ngunnawal, Ngambri and Wiradjuri country, and sovereignty has never been ceded. This always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.

As I speak today, the debate on the government's climate bill is almost completed, I understand, in the House. There is about to be a vote on the bill, which will set a target of 43 per cent reduction in our carbon emissions by 2030. We, as Greens, know that this is so far from what is necessary, but we, as Greens, also know that it is a step forward. It is a massive step forward from the climate denialism of the previous government. Their target was clearly completely out of step with the rest of the world and completely out of step with what the science requires. But we also know that the 43 per cent target is basically going to be baking in the most extreme climate change and the most extreme heat, with global heating double what we've got now. It is just not enough.

As people know, the Greens announced yesterday that we would be supporting the government's climate bill because it is a step forward. But, as Adam Bandt, our leader, said, 'It's like bringing a bucket of water to a house fire.' It's a step forward, but it's nowhere near enough. We need to be doing so much more if we are going to have a safe climate for us, for the people of the future and for all the other species that we share this planet with. We know what the science says. It's not just the Greens saying this. Scientists, the International Energy Agency, certainly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and countries all around the world know that we need to have at least a 75 per cent reduction in our carbon pollution by 2030. Even that is going to bake in 1½ degrees of warming.

We've seen what less than 1½ degrees of warming means in terms of the weather that is being experienced around the world now. We have seen it in our Black Summer bushfires—those extraordinary fires that killed billions and billions of animals, that caused deaths around the country from heat stress and caused massive impacts on our natural environment. We saw the huge fires and the burning of our native forests. In the East Gippsland region of Victoria, 80 per cent of the forest burned in those fires. We've seen the heatwaves in Europe. We've seen the temperature in England reach 40 degrees. We have seen the hundreds, if not thousands, of people dying there. We've seen the heatwaves across Pakistan and India. We've seen the floods here in Australia. This is what's going to continue. This is what we need to tackle.

We know what's causing this. We have known it for decades. Certainly I came into this place with a history of having worked on climate. I knew that the No. 1 existential issue that we needed to take serious action on was to reduce our carbon pollution to zero as quickly as possible and, in fact, to achieve negative emissions. That means getting out of coal, gas and oil, because it is the burning of those fossil fuels which is causing the climate crisis. So our position, of course, is that we are going to keep on talking about the need to lift our level of ambition and get out of the burning of coal, gas and oil as quickly as we possibly can here in Australia. We also need to stop contributing to the world's burning of coal and gas and oil by continuing to open up new mines and new coal and gas. We cannot afford to do so. We just can't.

One of the problems with decision-making in this place is that there is such a short-term approach, one that thinks about what's going to happen in terms of profits for a very small number of people over a very small period of time, when that's not the decision-making framework that we need to have. We need to be thinking about the reality of what the burning of those coal and gas reserves is going to mean for our future. And it's not a happy future. The science is really clear. Every tonne of coal and gas burnt increases the intensity and the speed of changes to our climate, which means more floods such as those experienced across New South Wales and Queensland this year, more intense droughts, more heatwaves and more frequent bushfires.

The positive thing about a government agenda and what we can be working on together is that Australia is so blessed with renewable resources, both for ourselves as a country and for export to the rest of the world. We are probably the best placed in the whole world to be leading this transition, and that's what we need to be doing. We need to be working towards that, rather than, hypocritically, using the drug dealer's defence about our coal and our gas—if we don't burn it, if we don't mine it, if we don't export it, then somebody else will. Not only is that immoral, completely unsubstantiated and completely unacceptable in relation to what the impact of it would be for our future, it's just not true. We are the world's second-largest exporter of thermal coal. Australia is the third-largest fossil fuel exporter behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia. In fact, if we had a planned transition out of coal and gas—we've got our coal and gas mines at the moment—if we had a planned transition out of those and we absolutely did not open up any of the 114 new coal and gas mines that are being planned, if we did that in a planned and measured way, it would have a massive impact on the world's supply and it would turbocharge the shift which is already happening around the world to renewable energy, including so much Australian renewable energy. Australian electricity, Australian hydrogen, created with Australian jobs in the future focused Australian economy—that's the direction that we need to be putting all of our efforts into. We need to be saying, 'This is the sustainable future for us all. This is what's going to be bringing wealth and wellbeing to Australia as well as to the rest of the world.'

The Greens implore the government to listen to the science and to lift its ambition. We will keep on talking about the need to get out of coal and gas. The Climate Change Bill 2022, which is going through the House today and which will come back to us in the Senate in the coming months, is just the first step. There is so much more that needs to be done. We implore the government to listen to the voices of the community, rather than to the voices of the big coal and gas corporations, and to listen particularly to the voices of young people, who, unlike most of us—I don't know whether I'll still be around in 2050: certainly, in 2070 I'll be long gone. The young people, who are talking about their future, are going to be here in 2050. They're going to be here in 2070. They are the people who will have to live with the consequences of our decision today.

On our opening day, on Tuesday of last week, when the Governor-General gave his speech, we had young people here in this parliament. They came to parliament to have their voices heard on these urgent issues of climate and inequality. However, very sadly, in an attempt to silence them, these young, peaceful protesters were ejected by the parliament, by police, for singing—for singing, mind you!—in peaceful protest. I'm so glad that the following day I was able to get out and meet them and to sing with them on the lawns of Parliament House, to tell them that we heard their voices, that we listened to them and that we were going to keep on acting, being their representatives in this place and trying to get the government to listen.

I will use some of my time here today to elevate their voices and to give you the words that they were telling us—their message to us all on Tuesday last week. They are a strong and growing movement of young people from all over the country, and they want you to hear this. They told us that, with people across the country facing unprecedented climate disasters, rising costs of living and a housing crisis, we need climate jobs for all, and that solving the climate crisis is too important to be left in the hands of big business. We need sustained action, coordinated by the government, in the hands of the public. They said that a climate jobs guarantee will end unemployment and get our economy back on track. It will solve the climate crisis. It will prepare us for climate disasters. And they said that our politicians have a choice to make: they can either bend to the will of big business or choose a people-first recovery that makes society better than what it was before the pandemic. So I pledged to those young people from the Tomorrow Movement that we Greens are listening, and I implore everybody else in this place to listen to them as well.

One of the other things that was really notable in the Governor-General's speech was the absence of any commitment to protect our native forests. Protecting our forests is one of the most efficient, effective and immediate ways to take climate action, because our native forests are excellent carbon sinks. There was a recent study on Tasmania's forests by the Tree Projects, which revealed that protecting native forests could provide $2.6 billion worth of carbon sequestration by 2050. Alarmingly, the study also found that annual emissions from native forest logging in Tasmania are equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.1 million cars. Experts have also warned us that logging our precious native forests increases the frequency and severity of bushfires, driving threatened species further into extinction and placing Australians in danger.

Yet, we are not protecting our forests. We must protect our forests, or we risk a climate catastrophe, and yet native forest logging is being facilitated by state and federal governments, who are recklessly destroying our forests. Native forest logging will never be sustainable. It destroys First Nations' country and totem species. It destroys habitat and robs our future generations of the right to our environment.

And yet, again, as I'm speaking here today, this afternoon, in the Victorian parliament, there is legislation being passed that is going to mean that the people protesting about this and defending our forests could be imprisoned for up to a year or receive up to $21,000 in fines. Similar antiprotest laws have also been debated in the Tasmanian and New South Wales parliaments. So I'm calling upon this government to speak out about these state government laws. We need to scrap our logging laws. We need to protect our native forests. But, at the very least, what this Labor government could do is to speak up for people's rights and speak up for the environment. They should be making the strongest representations to Victoria to abandon these laws, which are an attack on people's rights as well as an attack on our forests.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (12:38): I also rise to make a contribution in response to the address by the Governor-General at the commencement of the 47th Parliament. To hear the bold nation-changing agenda of the Albanese Labor government reflected in his words was a really proud moment for me in this place.

We, as a government, have so much work to do. We took a plan to the election that will deliver considered and serious reform across Australia. Our plans for early education and care will ensure that 97 per cent of Australian families have better, cheaper access to care. We are committed to the development and implementation of an early-years strategy, to identify how best government can coordinate the various government services impacting the early years. This is about delivering real outcomes, better outcomes, for our youngest Australians—something I am deeply passionate about. We have promised to rebalance the industrial framework of Australia to provide more job security and stronger wage growth, and to close the gender pay gap.

As a proud and parochial South Australian, I have seen at close hand the impact of declining manufacturing in this country. It has affected my state perhaps more than any other. At times, during the previous government, we've seen that decline in manufacturing be aided and abetted by the decisions that they have made. The collapse of our car industry in South Australia has consequences that will be felt in South Australia for generations to come. But it's not just the car industry. It was the uncertainty given to the workers at Osborne in the submarine program, who were left uncertain, year after year, Christmas after Christmas, about the future of their jobs, about the opportunities for them in our state. Australia should be a country that makes things—great things—and our government will make it one again. Australians also deserve to have faith that, when they go to work, they get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This is a pillar of fairness in Australia. It's part of who we are as Australians. It's something else that we will deliver.

Another pillar of fairness is Medicare, which, after a decade of coalition government, has been run down in the face of growing demand. This pandemic that we've all been living through in the past few years has been a stark reminder of the importance of a well-funded and robust public health system, which only Labor prioritises and only Labor delivers in government. I'm proud of our commitments, during this election, that will strengthen Medicare further. We built Medicare, we believe in it and we will protect it. We will make it easier to see a doctor and cut the costs of medications for millions of Australians. We have reforms to children's health care, including ending the newborn health screening lottery and providing better care for children with hearing loss.

The task of Labor governments is always urgent. Once again, we've entered government at a hugely challenging time for our nation. I am absolutely committed to meeting the moment in which we find ourselves, as a government and as a community, and I know every member of the Albanese Labor government is as well. We don't intend to waste a single day of government in facing and tackling the challenges facing the Australian people and our community.

I was elected in 2019. Since then, I've travelled all over our state, talking to families, talking to workers, talking to kids, about what they wanted out of their government and what our plan was for South Australians. From Ceduna to Murray Bridge, Gawler to Payneham, the message was clear: South Australians wanted better. They wanted more from their government and they wanted something fairer. And, particularly over the last couple of years, they've wanted change. They felt unheard, unlistened to, and they felt that the previous government didn't have their interests at heart.

Aged-care workers have told me about the desperate conditions they've faced every day at work, feeling underpaid and overworked and not being given the respect that they deserve. I will never forget the incredible privilege I had to join a group of aged-care workers in Adelaide as they bussed from their workplaces to the CBD, to protest against the government's failures on aged care. I was invited by my good friend Donna, a proud and fearless advocate for the hardworking and dedicated aged-care workers she works alongside every day, and, of course, the residents they adore, too.

As we bussed into the city and got closer to town, some of these workers started playing music on the bus. One of the songs they put on was by Sir Elton John—I'm not going to sing it, but the words are, 'I'm still standing after all this time.' It was a light moment on a serious day, but I couldn't get those words out of my mind. What apt words to describe a workforce that had been pushed to breaking point not just during the pandemic but also in the years before it, where aged care was treated with nothing short of neglect. For these workers, for the residents they care for, for the families who love those residents, we finally, under this government, have a chance to do better.

I heard from countless families and caregivers, disheartened by their inability to access affordable, quality early learning and care in the communities where they live—families weighing up the financial implications of another day of care, making huge decisions about their lives, their work and their children because costs of care are crushing. But it's not just families; it's our early-learning educators, left completely behind during the pandemic. They felt unseen and unvalued by the government, a government—in what I think was one of the lowest days we've had in this building—where we had reports of its members labelling child care as 'outsourced parenting'. It was one of the most vile attacks our early-learning educators had experienced and, of course, it was deeply offensive to the families who rely on them.

I've been really proud to stand up for our educators. We have a big agenda for early learning, but I am keenly aware that it's not everything. My ambition for early learning knows absolutely no bounds, and it's something I will continue to fight and advocate for in the years ahead, because it matters. It matters to children in care—to their opportunities and outcomes; it matters to productivity; it matters to the kind of nation that we want to build; it matters when we're looking at smashing intergenerational disadvantage; and it matters for the amazing workforce which delivers this profound service to our community in educating our littlest minds.

Before the pandemic caused such great devastation in South Australia we had another kind of devastation with the summer bushfires which struck Kangaroo Island and the Adelaide Hills. Homes and businesses were destroyed and lives were lost. These sorts of disasters are devastating and they're only going to get worse; they're set to get even more severe and more frequent because of the effects of climate change. My community in South Australia knows that; South Australians want action on climate change. They're sick and tired of the climate wars. They voted for us because they want these wars to be over. I am so proud that in the other place we've seen that work start today. And we have more to do: we're going to end these climate wars, we're going to get the action that we need and we're going to do it in a way which brings business, which brings workers and which brings environmental groups together on a journey to meet our responsibilities and do what we know we need to do for our planet and our environment.

I've also heard from young South Australians, over the past few years and still now, about the difficulties they face with housing—either buying their first homes or dealing with ever-increasing rents. That's gotten much worse in South Australia since 2020, with prices skyrocketing and rental availability going down. On top of these challenges, they had a government forcing them to drain their superannuation accounts—to tap into that limited resource when they were doing it tough. I've heard from small and medium businesses who rely on the pathway of defence manufacturing in South Australia and who are fearful for their futures with the continual delays to decisions around the future of work at Osborne. These are businesses which now have a new assurance from our defence minister, who is committed to manufacturing the nuclear submarine fleet in Adelaide.

Each of these stories paints a picture of an Australia tired of nine long years of a government with no agenda, no plans and no desire to build a better future for Australia. These people represent just a fraction of the community I represent—a community I talk to and seek to represent, help and assist in my work as a senator. It's one of the best parts of what I get to do: getting into different communities in our state, talking to people, finding out what's going on on the ground and then bringing that back into this place and fighting for change.

There's one community in particular in South Australia which has absolutely captured my heart through my time as a senator, and that's the community of Ceduna and the surrounding areas. I was shocked to learn about this community's pleas for help in replacing their local health clinic, which was dangerously run down and had been ignored for years by governments who kept passing the buck. This clinic of course is Yadu health, a clinic I've spoken about many times in this chamber. It's a clinic riddled with mould, asbestos and water damage. It's where a staff member said they had been electrocuted at their desk when trying to plug something into the wall. Another staff member talked about the roof falling in during the rains. It's a clinic where too many people walk in, say, 'Oh, that's terrible!' and just keep on walking. This clinic will now be rebuilt by the Albanese Labor government. I am so proud of this commitment, and I'm deeply grateful to the Hon. Linda Burney MP and to Minister Kyam Maher in SA for their work here as well.

Since the election, the most common sentiment I've heard from South Australians in talking about the result is relief, and it's a feeling that I felt on election night too—relief that something better, fairer and more just is on its way to Australia. It was relief that leadership and accountability is back; relief that our nation's diversity would finally be better reflected in the new parliament—indeed, it's better reflected in this chamber; and relief that progressive values that prioritise caring for one another, looking after one another and valuing people could once again be at the heart of federal government.

So many people contributed to the outcome: volunteers and, of course, all the candidates who ran. I want to acknowledge in the other place my good friends Matt Burnell and Louise Miller-Frost, who were elected at this election, and also the many candidates who put their hands up for Labor values, like Sonja in Sturt, Julie in Grey, Mark in Barker, Marisa in Mayo and Trimann, Jo and Belinda, who were all candidates for Labor's Senate ticket. All these candidates committed to our values and were committed to what we were trying to achieve, to get an agenda of fairness back at the heart of government.

I want to congratulate Tony Zappia MP and Steve Georganas MP in the other place on their re-election, and I note that I'm very proud to continue to serve alongside Senator Grogan, even though, like me, she was not up for re-election this time. I also want to acknowledge that in the ministry we have some great South Australians in Senator Wong, Senator Farrell, Amanda Rishworth and Mark Butler, all of whom I congratulate on their appointments.

In my first speech in this place in 2019, I outlined my belief that one of the greatest tasks for Labor is to make Australia better for the generations to come. We are custodians of the institutions and the levers of policy within government to make it better, to make it fairer—and we're on our way. I was proud to sit in this place during the Governor-General's address last week, where the values and goals and bold ideas of our new Labor government were read into the record. It is an incredibly humbling honour to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which I know will place fairness, boldness, urgency and unity at the centre of our plans to tackle the challenges before our nation.

Our party, the great Australian Labor Party, is the great reformer of Australian history. Whether it's the establishment of Medicare under Bob Hawke, native title or the NDIS, we do the big things, the hard things, that change our nation fundamentally for the better. I know the reforms of our government, led by Anthony Albanese, will lead to a fairer and better Australia for the next generation and those to come.

I am especially humbled by the task ahead, with the referendum on a voice and, indeed, the broader implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, which Labor is committed to delivering—voice, treaty and truth. In Garma, we saw the Prime Minister set the road map for the path ahead. This is the start of the public discussion. This is the start of the process, which I hope will lead to a voice. If we get there, I know that that voice will make a practical difference. I believe South Australians are ready for voice, treaty and truth. They want to walk in unity towards that path. As a senator, I'll take my leadership responsibility to walk with Australians towards that goal and do that in a way that is collaborative and respectful. Ultimately, I hope that is something that this parliament, the 47th Parliament, can achieve and be proud of achieving together.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): I want to take the opportunity before calling the next speaker to remind senators that it is courteous to listen to other senators in silence rather than interjecting. Senator Bragg, you have the call.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (12:52): I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks in response to the Governor-General's statement at the opening of the parliament last week and to deal with one of the primary issues in the speech where the government identified the Uluru Statement as a priority. It is an important issue, and it is going to take a lot of thought and care for us to be able to deliver on some of the components of those policies that have been sought under that statement. The first point is that there is no question that, over the past 250 years, we have failed to institute good policies in Indigenous affairs. We have not been able to provide the sort of country we want to be. All you need to do is look at the often-recited statistics in the Closing the gap reports, which are regularly provided, and the updates given by the Productivity Commission.

Reflecting upon what Senator Smith had to say, there is no question that the Labor Party have done some good things over their history in Indigenous affairs, and so has the Liberal Party. It will take a degree of bipartisanship and tripartisanship if we are going to have any success in this area. We are living in a country that has not had a successful referendum since 1977, which was quite a long time before I was born, and there have been a series of defeated referenda in my lifetime. In order to achieve broad based support for a change in the Constitution, it will be very important to take people along on the journey and to address issues, some of which have been raised in this chamber and in this building in the past couple of weeks.

I think it is a reasonable proposition that we would seek to achieve what John Howard set out in 2007, when he said that we should have a form of constitutional recognition, but that we also should seek to do a better job on listening to people in communities about government service delivery and do a better job of ensuring that the laws and policies we make for Indigenous people are working for those communities. It is true that everyone is an individual, and it is also true that, when you travel around parts of regional Australia and talk to community members, as I have in western New South Wales, they are not talking about the Constitution. They're not thinking about constitutional amendments, in many cases. The issues that are before them are much more immediate and are often about routine service delivery—getting kids to school and the like. My view is that these changes, if done properly, can address this wretched problem of: How does government provide services? How does government engage with and listen to citizens, particularly in the far-flung parts of the states that we represent? My hope is that that is what can happen in this process.

Now, with a set of words having been put on the table last weekend—and as our shadow minister, Mr Leeser, indicated is a reasonable question and reasonable starting point—the parliament and the community should be given an opportunity to look at the various models or forms of words that could not only be applicable and acceptable to Indigenous people more broadly but also have a chance of being adopted and have a chance of winning at a referendum. I think that is a reasonable position for us to work on. I will be happy to work with other people in this parliament on that process. I would make the point, though, that if we are going to focus on the voice, which I understand is the first priority that most people in this place have indicated we should pursue, that is going to take a lot of the effort. I think it's going to be hard to pursue other significant measures in this space. So I look forward to making some contributions there.

Of course, the main reason we have this parliament is to ensure that we can put in place policies for the benefit of our people. My view has always been that the foundation of a fair or good society is a strong economy. The Labor Party had a few policies they took to the election that they won—not many; they had a few. They had a few policies for the economy—just a few. Let's see how they go with those. But, in the first few weeks of the government's time in office, the initial agenda appears to be very focused on paying off vested interests: the super funds, the unions and the class action lawyers. I just say that, if the job of a government is to work through the list of grievances from its vested interests, that would be a very regrettable start. I think we will ultimately end up in a position where the government is going to run out of things to do, because these laundry lists of rent-seekers are only so long.

I'll step through a few of these misguided agenda items. Everyone knows that the ABCC abolition is purely designed to pay off the CFMMEU, which is the major donor to the Labor Party. Why would anyone want to reduce the rule of law and transparency in that key construction sector? Then we've got Mr Jones over in the House of Representatives seeking to hide political donations that have been made by the super funds into the union movement. What's very curious is that Mr Jones is also seeking to hide payments from the super funds to the union movement. He is seeking to do that by ripping up regulations that were made only a few months ago which require super funds to disclose to members in their annual member statements the amount and the detail of the payments that are made to political parties and to unions. They're required to be disclosed in detail. Mr Jones wants to rip that up. He's wanting to do that before the disclosures have even been made for the financial year just gone, I assume because he doesn't want to be embarrassed by what disclosures are going to be made.

He currently has a consultation draft of his regulation with the Treasury department. I feel sorry for the Treasury officials. I feel sorry for them having to implement this absolute garbage, which is basically going to rip up the transparency and integrity provisions that have been put in place. After the Labor Party have lectured everyone else in this place about transparency and integrity, one of their first items is, of course, to reduce integrity and transparency. Anyway, Mr Jones is out there consulting on his regulations to hide these donations and these payments. 'The great super cover-up' is what I call it. If he decides to go ahead with this and he wants to make this regulation, of course this chamber could disallow that regulation within 15 days of it having been made.

Let's see. We will see whether the people who talk endlessly about integrity and transparency are going to eat their words or whether they are going to ensure that people who are forced to save into these vehicles are allowed to see where their money is going. That is the question: can people who are members of super funds see where their money is going? Is it going to the Labor Party? Is it going off to the unions? We know that in the last year 13 million bucks went from the super funds into the unions. That's going to balloon to $30 million by the end of this decade, so it's a lot of money. Anyone who's been involved in political campaigns in Australia can tell you that 13 million bucks a year is a lot of money. We will see if Mr Jones wants to pursue this regulation. I suspect that he may not want to, but if he does we will test the mettle of the Senate and see whether people are really committed to transparency and integrity.

The other thing that Mr Jones is pursuing over there in the House is a proposal to weaken the best financial interests duty that was put in place for the super funds, which is designed to stop the super funds giving the money out for non-commercial, non-member-focused activities. It is designed to stop these sorts of payments to unions and to political parties. It is designed to ensure that the funds can't get engaged in political advertising. It's designed to stop the funds sending money off to their boondoggle, the New Daily, which is an organisation that they've funded heavily and is basically just a propaganda outfit. The whole point of the best financial interests duty was to ensure that superannuation is there for the members.

Mr Jones has asked the Treasury—again, I feel sorry for the Treasury officials, who are very good officials. The Treasury officials in the Markets Group are some of the best public servants in the Commonwealth, and they're sitting there having to review the best financial interests duty. The only reason you would want to review the best financial interests duty is that you want to permit new payments that are banned today. That's the only reason you would do it. So we will see. Mr Jones, at some stage, will have to come clean on what other payments he wants to see. Does he want to open the floodgates to more payments for unions? Does he want to set up a new media empire funded by the unions? Maybe he wants to send more money through to the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. We will find out. But until we are clearer about what payments he wants to admit, that agenda can only be seen as working through a laundry list of items for the super fund and union movement.

Of course, the Labor Party have put forward very few policies for small business, and I think that in this term of parliament we should be looking to make it easier for people to run a small business, make it easier to hire, make it easier to comply with government regulations and make it easier to pay tax. We want to make sure that small businesses in this country are very easy to get going. Equally, my own party should have a good hard look at what policies we're prepared to put on the table as a party of government and, directionally, my party should also take time to consider the verdict that was given at the last election. I believe we should be very focused on our core equities of putting forward policies that are predominantly around driving economic growth, looking after enterprise and ensuring that we are focused on fairness—looking after people.

I would say that in the last period there have been too many cases where we have been dragged into culture wars and things that didn't really matter to people, or people couldn't understand why we were pursuing them, and we have been perceived at times as not being focused on fairness. We need to be a party of government focused on fairness and enterprise and we need to consider carefully the feedback from the electorate that we received in May. There is always room for improvement. People shouldn't be defensive about these things. It is my strong view that we have to have much better policies on emissions reduction. We have to take seriously the issues that were raised by Australian women, and we have to be committed to working with the government and other parties to put in place a serious integrity commission in Canberra.

I think this week has been an important week on that journey and I very much welcome the opposition leader's commitment that the Liberal Party and the coalition will develop a stronger policy on emissions reduction. We have had the 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030 for too long, and it has not been good enough. I am very keen that we go to the next election—well before the next election—with a vastly stronger policy on emissions reduction. It's important that the parties of government are presenting to the community but also to investors, who we want to fund this transition—we don't want taxpayers to be funding the transition; we want the market to fund it—that the parties of government are committed to emissions reduction, are committed to doing it in a competitive way, are going to keep pace with our competitors and are going to do our fair share of the heavy lifting. Thank you for the opportunity to speak; goodbye.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ): Thank you, Senator Bragg. We look forward to hearing from you again at a future point!

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:07): On 21 May this year Australians voted for change. They voted for change because they were tired. They were tired of an almost decade-old government that failed to address the major issues our country was facing. They were tired of a Prime Minister who refused to take responsibility, who would respond to questions about his failure to act with, 'That's not my job' or 'I don't hold a hose, mate'. They were tired of the Prime Minister's failures during the COVID pandemic: the failure to roll out vaccinations quickly enough, the failure to secure rapid antigen tests when they were needed and the failure to get stranded Australians home. They were tired of government ministers trying to undermine state and territory border controls by calling on premiers and chief ministers to open up before it was safe to do so. They were shocked that the previous government would join forces with the billionaire mining magnate to challenge state border restrictions in the High Court, support they only withdrew when they realised how unpopular it was.

Australians were tired of the government treating taxpayers' money like it was Liberal Party money. They were tired of the rorts and the government's refusal to establish a national anticorruption commission with real teeth. They were tired of seeing scandal after scandal when it came to issues of transparency and accountability: the sports rorts, the car park rorts, the overpriced land sales and overpriced water buybacks, the forging of documents to make a political point, the million-dollar blind trust used to fund court action against the ABC—and the list just goes on and on. The previous government took corruption and malfeasance to a level not seen since Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Australians were tired of the government refusing to take real action on climate change and continuing to make excuses for their lack of action. They were tired of seeing their wages stagnate while the cost of everything else was going up, yet the previous government had no plans to do anything about low wage growth or the cost of living. Haven't they changed their tune! Australians were tired of the neglect of older Australians in residential aged care. They were tired of the Prime Minister showing up for photo ops doing inane things, like building a chicken coop, cooking a curry or playing a banjo—not that well, I might add—yet going missing whenever there was a crisis or need for real leadership.

Australians voted for a majority Labor government because we offered them a positive alternative. We offered a vision and a plan for a better future. In my reply to the Governor-General's address, I will outline three areas that are of particular interest to me in which the Albanese Labor government offers a positive alternative to the abysmal record of the previous government. Those areas are early childhood education and care, skills and training, and housing and homelessness.

I turn first to early childhood education and care. I have chosen to focus on this area because of my more than a decade of past experience as an early childhood educator. We know that child care is important for families, because it helps them to juggle their work and family responsibilities. This is particularly important for women, who tend to take on the bulk of caring responsibilities. We know from evidence both in Australia and overseas that subsidised child care helps boost women's participation in the workforce and is an important contributor to closing the gender pay gap. Given the importance of subsidised early childhood education and care, I found it particularly galling to hear this measure described by those on the other side as 'communism', a 'money pit' and 'the hand of government reaching in and taking away our children's youth'.

If that was the attitude of the previous government then it explains a lot about their childcare policies. Out-of-pocket costs for child care went up more than 40 per cent under the previous government. We even had the farcical situation where parents—mostly women—were sometimes only receiving a marginal financial benefit from taking on additional work. In some cases, it was even costing them more than they stood to earn. The policy Labor brought to the last election will make child care cheaper for 96 per cent of Australian families. That's 1.26 million families. It will lift the maximum subsidy to 90 per cent for families with their first child in child care and keep the higher and additional rates for the second and additional children. On top of this, we will get the Productivity Commission to conduct a comprehensive review into the sector, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. The ACCC is to design a price-regulation mechanism to drive out-of-pocket costs down for good.

Subsidising early childhood education and care is about a lot more than just driving workforce participation. As a former early childhood educator who understands the industry and the work that the educators do, I know that the benefits flow not just to the parents but also, importantly, to the children. This is why workers in the sector are called educators now instead of carers. Yes, they provide all the important care needs for children such as feeding, changing nappies and wiping runny noses, but educators also provide an age-appropriate program of play based learning aimed at specific learning outcomes. They train for years learning how to plan and implement this learning. They also undertake continuous professional development to maintain their skills and keep up to date with the latest knowledge and research on early childhood learning and development.

This is a highly skilled, professional occupation that provides the foundation skills necessary to set children up for their school education. We know from research that children who engage in early learning get better learning outcomes for life. The early years before the age of five are considered to be a key time for learning development. Early childhood education contributes to so many aspects of learning: motor skills, social and emotional development, language skills and comprehension—and the list goes on. When we on this side of the chamber talk about cheaper child care and when we talked about it in the lead-up to the election, we are not just talking about reducing the cost of living for struggling Australian families. We're not just talking about driving workforce participation, getting more women into work and closing the gender pay gap, as important as they are. We are also talking about improving the learning outcomes of preschool aged children with skills that will potentially set them up for life. As a former educator I know the power of early childhood education because I've seen how it has transformed the lives of the children who were under my care and who I taught.

I mentioned earlier the importance of Australians engaging in the workforce. For them to do that we need to give them the opportunity to get secure, high-paying jobs. The most secure and best-paying jobs are skilled jobs. The COVID pandemic has laid bare the extraordinary depth of the skills crisis Australia is facing. While Australia will always have a need to fill skills gaps with skilled migration, most Australians would agree we should prioritise getting Australians into skilled Australian jobs. Employers are crying out for skilled workers, yet there are still over a million Australians either looking for work or looking for more work.

The previous government didn't just fall asleep at the wheel when it came to tackling the Australian skills crisis; they crashed through the safety barrier and drove the car right over the cliff. Since coming to government those opposite reduced Australia's apprentice and training numbers by 70,000. They cut billions of dollars from TAFE and university, and their decision to abolish industry skills councils meant Australia was flying blind when it came to identifying and filling skills gaps.

In one of my previous jobs I was a training coordinator for the Australian Services Union and I was the Tasmanian branch representative on two industry skills councils, with representatives of employers, employees and relevant unions, training providers and government. These councils all collaborated to try and improve the skills of Tasmanian people. The councils undertook such tasks as skills audits, curriculum development and writing, and advising on the implementation of training policies, as well as overseeing the process for approval of accredited training. This role helped me appreciate the importance of assessing skills needs, predicting future skills needs and working with stakeholders in the process. This capability is vital if you want to know where to invest to develop the skills you need.

If filling skills shortages is like driving a car, investing in training and education is like putting petrol in the car, while having an authority to identify the skills needs is like having a map to navigate. There's no point driving around burning petrol if you don't know where you're going. Sadly, the previous government spent nine years draining the fuel tank, dismantling the engine and throwing the map right out the window. So it's now left to Labor to fix the skills crisis, and we will.

The Albanese government will establish Jobs and Skills Australia as a national partnership to strengthen workforce planning by working together with employers, unions and the training and education sector. We will provide 465,000 fee-free TAFE places for students studying industries with skills shortage, including 45,000 new places. And we will deliver up to 20,000 extra university places over 2022 and 2023 with a particular focus on national priority areas like clean energy, advanced manufacturing, health and education and where there are skills shortages.

But, even when Australians can get a secure, well-paying job, the dream of homeownership is becoming increasingly out of reach—particularly for young Australians. With soaring house prices, people who are renting are facing the double whammy of having to save for a deposit while spending more of their money on rent in a tighter, more competitive rental market. For the first time in Australia's history, median house prices have passed $1 million.

It's very appropriate that my colleague Julie Collins, the member for Franklin—in whose electorate my local office just happens to be based—has been appointed the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness. Minister Collins's electorate of Franklin covers most of the outer suburbs of Hobart, which now has the distinction of being the least affordable capital city for rental accommodation. We can see the disastrous consequences of this, with over 4,000 Tasmanians on the housing waiting list and the average waiting time being more than a year for priority applicants. Priority applicants have to wait more than a year. This means a lot of pain for people who are couch surfing, sleeping in emergency shelters or living in cars, tents or caravans. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it has been for Tasmania's homeless through the harsh winter we've just had. Only last week Hobart had snow down to 200 metres.

Shelter is a basic human need and, as such, it's a human right, but it's something that previous governments did almost nothing to provide during almost a decade in office. We now have a prime minister who truly understands the importance of social and affordable housing; after all, he grew up in public housing. Not only do we have a prime minister who grew up in public housing; our housing minister also spent the early years of her life in public housing. Building social and affordable housing works, and that's what Labor intends to do to address the housing crisis. That's why we will establish a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the income from which will fund social and affordable housing in perpetuity. That includes 30,000 social and affordable homes across Australia in the first five years. Of course, providing secure affordable accommodation also means helping more people and their families to realise the great Australian dream of owning their own home. Forty years ago, almost 60 per cent of Australians on low and modest incomes owned their own home; now it's only 28 per cent. Labor's Help to Buy scheme will help 10,000 Australians a year reduce the cost of buying their own home by up to 40 per cent. This will mean a smaller deposit, a smaller mortgage and smaller repayments.

I've outlined our plans in three important areas, but Labor's agenda for the future is so much bigger than that. We've got a lot of challenges to address, including rising inflation, an uncertain global trade and security environment, and a trillion-dollar debt. Many of these challenges are the legacy of the mess left to us through nine years of Liberal-National neglect. Cleaning up that mess is a big job. It will take a lot longer than the two months that we've been in government for, no matter what those on the other side say. You had nine years; we've had two months. But we have one of the most experienced and capable ministries in Australian history, and we also have a wealth of new talent on our backbench.

We were elected on the promise of delivering a better future for all Australians. With hard work and discipline, we're capable of delivering on that promise and we are getting on with the job of doing just that.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:22): I've had a surreal feeling here in Canberra during the last two weeks. We face, as a country, perhaps the biggest challenges since the 1930s, yet we have wasted our time in this parliament on issues that are not going to deliver real results for Australians and are not going to make our country stronger and more prepared for what might be to come. After two years of a pandemic, in 2022, we now face a year when war has erupted in Europe for the first time since the 1940s. This week, the Chinese Communist Party is, effectively, putting into place a blockade against Taiwan. We do not know, over the next year or two, what Australians might be called upon to do, particularly young Australians. This war in Europe now is metastasising, potentially to become a world war, and we will not be able to be completely immune from its impacts and effects. We should be preparing for that. We should be making our country more resilient and stronger and we should be getting back to being self-sufficient in basic things that we need to supply any type of economy during wartime. Instead, all this new government is focused on is symbolism and tokenism.

This morning in the other place, a bill was passed to establish an emissions target for 2030—eight years time. Who knows what's going to happen in the next eight years? We do not know, yet we're setting a target. On the government's own admission, they don't really need the legislation. They've said that. They've said: 'We don't need the legislation. We're just doing it, effectively, to fill time.' I think there are other things we could be doing in this place, rather than just engaging in symbolism. Another thing we've been told we're going to have is an Indigenous voice, but, again, we're told: 'It won't have any real power. It's not going to be able to do anything. It won't be able to solve any issues for Indigenous people.' It will just be more politicians here in Canberra. More talk! What this country needs now is action, not talk. Yes, I agree with Senator Bilyk that this government is only a few months old, and they are still riding off the excuse that it's their first day on the job. Fair enough, but there is a lot of talk and not a lot of action here. And we as a country desperately need action, given the circumstances we find ourselves in.

This is a reply to the Governor-General's speech. I was making notes during the Governor-General's speech to us. In fairness to the Governor-General, it's not written by him; he just says it. When you look at the political speech the government put together here, it's often more what is not said than what is actually said that is key. In the speech of more than 20 minutes provided by the Governor-General to this chamber, there was not one single mention of Australia's mining industry, perhaps the greatest contributor to our nation's economy, particularly over the last couple of years. I'll come to some of our weaknesses, which we need to be honest about. But perhaps one of the shining lights in our economy, where we've become stronger, better and more self-sufficient in the last couple of decades, is our mining industry. We're the world's largest exporter of iron ore, the largest exporter of uranium, the largest exporter of coal and now, in just the last couple of years, the largest exporter of liquid natural gas. We are an important country because of that.

Just today, we read the news that the shipment of coal that we donated to the Ukraine has arrived in Poland and will soon be providing power to Ukrainians. President Zelenskyy, just in the last few days, has thanked Australia for that contribution. We can contribute a lot to world security through what we mine and the energy we provide, particularly given the situation we see where the autocratic Russian regime is using its energy exports as leverage to gain control over and influence a wartime situation. We can help prevent those countries having that ability to dictate to weaker and smaller countries, that leverage over them, but only if we support our mining sector: our coal, oil, gas, iron ore and other industries.

Yet that speech did not have a single mention of it. There wasn't even a mention of lithium, nickel or cobalt, which are the flavours of the month. But the biggest exports currently that we can help contribute are in those fossil fuel industries. Instead, we've heard over the past couple of weeks—I know the Greens are always going to want to shut down the coal, oil and gas industries—from the government, from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, that he agrees with the Greens, and he will find other ways to shut down these industries. He's not going to do it through this legislation I described, but he's going to use this thing called the safeguard mechanism. Isn't that an Orwellian term! Be very, very scared of something the government calls a safeguard mechanism. He's going to use this safeguard mechanism to shut down these industries. He's been telling the Greens sweet nothings about this. We don't know what they're saying behind closed doors. And that gives exactly the wrong impression to the thousands of Australians that work in our mining industry—and, as I said, how that industry can contribute to keeping and maintaining global peace and stability. The government just does not seem focused on that.

They should be. They should be, because, while we have had a generation of success in our mining industry, it's a different story in our manufacturing sector. That has been in decline. We need to be honest about that, assess that and change that. It's been happening through various governments—I'm not blaming or being partisan to any side of politics. But, for decades now, our manufacturing sector has been in decline. In the year 2000 we were self-sufficient in raw petroleum. We could produce enough petroleum for our domestic needs. We exported a lot of it, but we still could be self-sufficient, push come to shove. We had 96 per cent of our raw petroleum needs produced here in Australia. Today that figure is below 50 per cent. We've lost two-thirds of our oil-refining capacity over that period. They're gone. So what happens if the sea lanes around us close and we can no longer import oil? We cannot—

Senator CAN AVAN: Yes. I'll take that interjection from Senator Antic. The response seems to be this: 'We've got lots of solar panels'—also made in China, by the way—'we've got lots of wind turbines, we're going to have these batteries, and it will all be all right.' We are not going to be able to defend this nation unless we can be self-sufficient in oil. That is going to be a key factor in any coming conflict in the region, and there is too little focus in this country right now on our deficiencies in oil, despite the fact there would be a lot more oil in this country if we had the guts to look for it and develop it, and despite the fact that there seem to be attempts to shut down the one shining hope in this country to produce more oil and become self-sufficient again, the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory. There are people here who want to shut that down. They're not talking about making Australians drive less or use less oil. We'll just import more of it from overseas and become more dependent, instead of becoming more independent as a nation and being able to use our God-given and abundant natural resources for the benefit of this country and the defence of our great nation.

I'm going to run out of time, but I'll pick it up later. I also passionately want to defend our steel industry and what it is going through. We're now a net importer of steel, despite being the biggest coal and iron ore exporter. That should change. I'll be able to pick that up next time we're back—at the same bat channel in the same bat place.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ): We will now move to two-minute statements.

Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:30): I believe in freedom of association. I believe in the right of Queensland nurses and Queensland teachers to choose who represents them in the workplace. Therefore, I am absolutely appalled at the Palaszczuk Labor government's attack on the rights of 10,000 Queensland nurses who, through the exercise of their own freedom of choice, have chosen to be represented by the NPAQ, and 3,000 teachers who have chosen, through the exercise of their freedom of choice, to be represented by the TPAQ. Why is the Palaszczuk Labor government attacking the right of NPAQ and the TPAQ to exist? Why? Follow the money.

The Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association of Queensland are totally independent of any political party. They do not make any political donations. Therefore, they can provide quality industrial relations services to the 10,000 nurses and 3,000 teachers who have chosen to be represented by them at a cost of $250 to $300 less per year. Why does any government of any political persuasion have a right to attack the rights of our teachers and nurses to choose an industrial relations organisation to represent them? I stand shoulder to shoulder with Queensland nurses and Queensland teachers to defend their right to freedom of choice and their right to choose the industrial relations organisation that is unaffiliated with the Australian Labor Party.

Senator GREEN (Queensland) (13:32): It's nice to follow Comrade Scarr after his passionate embrace of unionism. I join the Senate today as the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef on an incredibly important day for the reef. Today we've had the release of a report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science. This report has some good news stories for our reef and the people that rely on the reef for their jobs. This report, released today, says that there is coral recovery in the north and central parts of our reef. This is the highest level of coral recovery in the last 36 years—since the long-term monitoring program began. There are still some challenges on the southern part of our reef: there are some outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish that need to be managed and that are seeing increases since the southern parts of the reef have had warmer waters.

I want to be really clear about this. This report has some good news, but it also makes clear that the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change on a long-term basis, and that is why our government has today decided to legislate climate action in making sure that we can legislate our 43 per cent emissions target. We said we would do it at the election and we have delivered on that today. It is shameful that members of the Liberal and National parties voted against this legislation—the member for Leichardt, the former special envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, voted against this legislation today. If they are really serious about protecting regional jobs and the jobs that rely on the Great Barrier Reef, they will move on from the old dinosaur years and their policies that meant that we had a decade of delay and denials and damage to one of our greatest natural assets.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (13:34): The world is in the process of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards a decarbonised economy fuelled by renewable energy. Coal is on the way out already, and we must make sure that the workers in the coal industry and their families are taken care of. Regional workers in Australia working in the coal industry deserve a just fully funded transition to support them, their families and the communities. Workers across regional Australia know that a transition to low-emissions industries will happen, and they don't appreciate the scare campaigns being run by members of the Liberal and National parties. Scare campaigns help no-one, and they do nothing to change the facts.

The Greens want well paid, stable employment for people in communities currently engaged in the fossil fuel industry. We're working to secure that future so that workers will have opportunities for gainful employment in other industries. The Greens are the only party facing the reality of the energy transition, and we're the only party who took a comprehensive and costed transition plan to the election. No coal worker should experience the financial insecurity and anxiety for the future that comes with losing their job suddenly. With a carefully planned transition, we can assure workers that they will have rewarding jobs until their retirement and that their families, especially their children, will have strong services and employment options in the towns and communities that they know and love. Our regional communities will have a bright future, long after the last bit of coal is shovelled out of the ground, but only if we plan the transition well and we start planning it now.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (13:36): I rise to speak on the repeal of the cashless debit card, which is used by over 4,000 fellow Western Australians in both the goldfields and the east Kimberley. Anyone—anyone—who has taken the time to visit these regions will see the benefits to the women, children and elders who are now being far more protected. The card should be extended, and not repealed. The reduction of taxpayer funded access to drugs, alcohol and gambling products has significantly reduced alcohol and drug abuse. It has reduced assaults, child abuse, rape and death. It also makes people less vulnerable to humbugging.

Let me make it clear: the Albanese government has not properly consulted with the very people who will be so badly impacted by this measure. It is a complete and utter disgrace. It is also a disgrace today—today—that senators have voted to restrict community hearings around the nation. Can I say, shame on all of you who voted to restrict the hearings. I see Senator David Pocock is in the chamber. Can I say, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Dean Smith, I hope you attend every single one of those restricted hearings that you have voted for. You should go and look the women, children and elders in the eye and explain to them why you have taken this decision. You should go out on one of the night patrols or several night patrols in several towns to see exactly the consequences on the police and on the other community services, the hospitals, of the actions that you are about to take. It is inconceivable to me and those on this side of the chamber that any government or any senator would knowingly inflict pain and suffering on vulnerable women, children and the elderly. Make no mistake: all who vote for this bill will be culpable for the inevitable consequences that you will inflict on local communities. (Time expired)

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:38): This week is Landcare Week, and I'm pleased to make a contribution about a cause and organisation that is close to my heart.

Senator Reynolds: You may laugh, David, but you come to those communities and look them in the eye!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ): Excuse me, senators, Senator Ciccone has the call.

Senator CICCONE: I've had the pleasure of being the co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Landcare in the last parliament and I hope to do so in this parliament, the 47th Parliament. I hope that all my Senate colleagues received my recent communication, with Senator Perin Davey, on joining the group stating that we celebrate the great work that many Landcare organisations do across our country. Since I was first a senator, I've enjoyed engaging with many Landcare volunteers right across my home state of Victoria. It is a wonderful organisation, full of extraordinary people who dedicate themselves to restoring, enhancing and protecting the natural environment which our communities enjoy.

Landcare has been bringing volunteers together to undertake activities and share information for over 30 years. It first started in my home state, in Victoria, with the Victorian Farmers Federation and many Landcare groups. It's great to see where it has gotten to today in 2022. Over 6,000 Landcare groups are active right across Australia, with over 100,000 volunteers. Unfortunately, there is more work than ever for these volunteers to do. With the increasing frequency of natural disasters, like floods and bushfires, landcare has never been more important.

The work these volunteers do is invaluable, and they come from all walks of life, so it is fitting that the theme for Landcare week is 'celebrating landcare diversity'. It doesn't matter if you live in the regions or in the city or whether you work on a farm or in the office. I encourage all Australians to seek out their local Landcare group and get involved.

Senator TYRRELL (Tasmania) (13:40): This is not my first speech. The cost of everything is going up—lettuce, fuel, your mortgage repayments. It's tough out there to make ends meet. Do you know what isn't going up, though? Community care funding—at least, not by enough for organisations to survive on. Community care helps with all the things that get a little bit harder when you get older—things like mowing the lawn or fixing a fence, transport to doctors appointments and cleaning your house. It's an important service that people rely on. This year, funding is increasing by just 1.7 per cent. Community care providers have to put that towards increased wages, super contributions, insurance and loan or rent repayments, and those numbers just don't add up.

Providers don't deserve it. Their staff are the people we trust to look after our mums and dads and our grandparents, and they need our support. I know because my partner, Tim, works in the aged-care industry. I see the long hours he does. I see the times he's gone hours without a drink or potty break because he's been kitted up in PPE, the sadness when he comes home and tells me one of his patients has passed away, and the smile on his face when he tells me about their adventures—that Glynis felt well enough to dance today or Tim sang along to John's favourite song. It's a hard job, and when bigger organisations can offer way better money for easier jobs it's not hard to see how small organisations are losing staff.

NDIS funding is going up by nine per cent this year, almost four times as much as community care funding. That allows for the increase in minimum wages and superannuation. If community care is facing the same increases, then why aren't they getting the same funding? They do similar work. Community care workers deserve more funding, just like the NDIS. It's not asking for the world. It's what they need to cover the bare minimum.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (13:42): If the new Treasurer and finance minister genuinely want to protect the budget, they will ensure that the Brisbane Olympic Games sporting infrastructure body that was part of the fifty-fifty funding deal between the Commonwealth and the Queensland state government is put in place. We know Queensland desperately does not want the discipline and oversight of this agency, but, as we've seen in recent weeks, there is a genuine need for proper control of spending and decisions relating to the delivery of the games' sporting infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars.

Just this week, reports came of proposed changes to venues that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars extra, with the Commonwealth on the hook for 50 per cent of that. Queensland minister Grace Grace, describing the Gabba project, said:

We do not know the footprint. We do not know the design. We have a schematic sketch. We are still stabbing in the dark.

Frightening warnings indeed! If Australian taxpayers are in any way to be protected from the excesses of the scandal-ridden Queensland government in the decision-making and timely delivery of these major investments, the full deal must be insisted on.

Let's not forget that the only reason the 2032 Olympic Games are going ahead is that the Commonwealth government agreed to fund 50 per cent of the sporting infrastructure costs. The Queensland government said they would not bid unless we did. These Olympics will be a powerhouse for the country, with thousands of jobs and significant investment, but let's not lose sight of sound planning and prudent investment in the lead-up.

Senator WALSH (Victoria) (13:44): It was just over 10 weeks ago that the people of Australia voted for change—voted to put the heart and hard work back into government. Just 10 weeks ago, new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised that Labor would work hard every day to bring Australians together, to build a better, brighter future for all. And, true to this promise, we have hit the ground running.

Here are my top 10 reforms of our first 10 weeks. First, we successfully supported a wage increase for Australia's lowest-paid workers. Second, we wrote to Fair Work for a pay rise for our essential aged-care workers. Third, we passed legislation to help fix aged-care quality and safety. Fourth, we established a Jobs and Skills Summit to deliver good, secure jobs. Fifth, we introduced legislation to tackle the skills crisis. Sixth, we restored our reputation on the world stage. Seventh, we committed to reducing emissions, and today we delivered in the House. Eighth, we introduced legislation for paid family and domestic violence leave. Ninth, we moved to scrap the cashless debit card. Tenth, we took the first steps towards enshrining a First Nations Voice to parliament, and I could not be more proud.

We've taken action on jobs and wages. We've rebuilt our global reputation. And we have put respect at the heart of government. And this is just the beginning. So get used to it, on the opposition benches! There is much more to do. In just 10 weeks, we've done what the previous government failed to do in almost 10 years. This is what good government can do. This is what Labor governments always do: we work hard every day for the people of Australia, and we get the job done.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (13:46): This week the government announced a review into the Australian Defence Force, but we don't need a review to tell us what we already know. Former chief of the ADF Chris Barrie has made it clear that climate change is one of the largest security threats to Australia and our very vulnerable region. Yet it receives little more than lip-service in Australia's defence policy. We also know that, over the last decade, Defence has overseen repeated multibillion-dollar budget blow-outs across the portfolio, with chronic project delays, despite a budget that grows year on year. It's troubling that this review is being undertaken by two of the key architects of the current defence posture, and it's difficult to see how they can turn a genuinely independent mind to the task. For all these reasons, the Greens will be closely monitoring this review and the major parties' continued uncritical support of excessive military expenditure.

Tomorrow, 5 August, is the third anniversary of the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which stripped away Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional protections and autonomy. This is a day of mourning for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and for the diaspora here in Australia—indeed, across the globe. The Australian Greens acknowledge the rights of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir to freedom and self-determination. We also acknowledge and support the work of the diaspora to bring global awareness to this human rights crisis. The Australian government has an obligation to raise the attacks on Jammu and Kashmir in its diplomatic engagement with India. This is about Australia speaking the truth to our friends and acknowledging the universal rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to basic human freedoms.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (13:48): This has been a history-making week. Today the House of Representatives passed the government's climate change bill, legislating for the first time a 2030 and a 2050 target. Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Restoring Territory Rights Bill. The next time we sit in this place, we will have to vote on both of these critical pieces of legislation. Today I would like to talk about the latter.

To my new colleagues: I look forward to having discussions about the territory rights bill and your support for giving the people in my electorate the same rights as the people who live in yours. The people of the ACT and Northern Territory deserve the same democratic rights as those who live in the states. Someone who lives in Tuggeranong or Gungahlin should have the same rights as people who live just across the border in Queanbeyan.

The bill simply seeks to restore rights that were removed from the territories in 1997. I ask you to join with me in putting an end to this quarter-century-old injustice. The bill enables the people of the NT and ACT, through our elected territory parliaments, to have the conversation on whether they want to legislate a voluntary assisted dying scheme. Every state has now had this debate, starting with Victoria and ending with New South Wales. There is no reason the ACT and NT shouldn't be able to engage in the same discussions.

I acknowledge the deeply-held convictions on this matter, but I also remind everyone that no-one is being asked to actually legislate on voluntary assisted dying in this place. This is about territory rights and whether or not we think that people who live in the territories should have the same rights as those who live in the states when it comes to debating and legislating voluntary assisted dying.

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (13:50): I rise to pass on my extraordinary congratulations to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens—and no, Mr Acting Deputy President Smith, I haven't lost my mind, arguably! Yesterday both of those parties took out the gold medal in the hypocrisy olympics. In fact, yesterday the Australian Labor Party, the self-appointed champions of transparency, proved themselves to be really nothing more than the champions of hypocrisy with their partners in pretence, the Australian Greens, by voting against my motion seeking transparency of parliamentary interactions with NGOs like the World Economic Forum. We weren't talking simply about a referral to change the register of interests; we were talking about a simple referral to a parliamentary committee.

The reason I raise the issue about hypocrisy is that less than 24 hours earlier, in question time in this chamber, we had an interaction from a question posed by Senator Lambie, who asked a question about transparency in super funds. Senator Gallagher responded with:

No, we are a big supporter of transparency and we'll be a lot more transparent in a whole range of areas than those opposite have ever been.

Twenty-four hours later, they voted against a simple referral to committee to try to get this investigated on the register of interests.

These self-styled champions of democracy and openness simply wouldn't have it. They wouldn't have an addition to the register of interests. In essence, all it sought to do was to have members of this place record any association or involvement with lobbying groups or NGOs, charitable foundations or international societies, like, for example, the World Economic Forum, which is led by Klaus Schwab. I had 55,000 signatures on a social media campaign on this. The people in this area, those opposite, clearly talk the talk when it comes to transparency but simply cannot walk the walk. My question is: what are they trying to hide?

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:52): The Australian Institute of Marine Science annual report has found that the Great Barrier Reef central section and northern section now have record coral cover. A natural event, a crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak, prevented the southern section reaching record coral cover too. For millennia the reef has witnessed natural events causing coral bleaching. Bleaching results when periods of high solar activity coincide with low tides, when the water cover is insufficient to protect the coral polyps and they die, meaning the reef bleaches. And then it recovers just as quickly, every time. Tropical cyclones bleach the reef and floods deliver fresh water plumes onto the reef, killing saltwater coral polyps. Once the plume dissipates, marine life consumes the nutrients in the floodwaters and the sediment turns into sand. The reef and the coastal environment are renewed.

Recently, in June 2008, record cold temperatures in Queensland caused coral bleaching. For millennia, natural solar, lunar and rain cycles have caused bleaching. What is new is the late 20th century environmental movement hijacking the perfectly normal climate cycle for their own political benefit. If your party's real objective is to control every aspect of life on the reef and along the coast, then be honest and have that debate. The only argument the climate fraudsters can advance in favour of onerous reductions in farm output is 'save the reef'. Well, the reef does not need saving and never has. The public has been deceived.

The left are seeking to shut down agriculture and transfer food production to near urban intensive food production facilities manufacturing food-like substances. Who will own these facilities? Not nature but predatory billionaires, the same predatory billionaires who own and drive the environmental movement for their own benefit. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and we will continue to stand up for our farmers' right to feed and clothe the world.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (13:54): Like so many women across Australia, including women here in this chamber, I've experienced sexual harassment in more than one workplace. I know firsthand that when such a thing happens there's nothing more important than sharing your experience and having the support of fellow workers, family, friends, trade unions and specialist support organisations. I personally found such support essential. All women, no matter what their background or where they live or work, should be able to readily access the support they need if they experience assault, sexual harassment or discrimination.

In light of this, today I'd like to highlight the important work of independent working women's centres, as illustrated by the work of the South Australian Working Women's Centre. I'd like to recognise that both our party and the Labor Party committed in the election to the implementation of recommendation 49 of the Respect@Work report, which was to establish and fund working women's centres in every state and territory. The Working Women's Centre in South Australia is a place that I'm incredibly proud of and a model that provides confidential, independent advice to a wide range of vulnerable women who experience all kinds of workplace challenges. In the 2021-22 financial year, some of their achievements included recovering over a million dollars in compensation and lost wages and helping nearly 2½ thousand workers.

The centre supports diverse and vulnerable women. Almost half their clients are engaged in precarious work and nearly half live with a disability. These stats demonstrate the vital and highly effective service provided by the South Australian centre, and I want to acknowledge their work; their current director, Abbey Kendall; and the many directors, board members and staff who preceded her. They do an amazing job. Every state and territory in Australia needs a centre this good. I look forward to the government acting on their commitment to establishing such a centre in every state and territory in the near future.

Senat or NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (13:56): In 2007, prior to what was declared an emergency in the Northern Territory, alcohol and sexual abuse were put on a national platform, shocking the rest of the nation. The Territory's Martin Labor government could not hide its inept leadership on such important social issues. Pat Anderson, the co-chair of the 2007 Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, stated:

Alcohol is absolutely totally destroying our communities and our families. There is no doubt about that. Something serious needs to be done to curb this river of grog. It's killing people, spiritually, physically, psychologically, there's a total breakdown in families when people are sort of drunk, most of the time, and everyone around them. And children are not safe.

Senator McCarthy's family community of Borroloola was showcased on national media, showing the devastation for the whole community as a result of the high consumption of alcohol.

Fast-forward 15 years and we are back to the rivers of grog flowing, thanks to another inept Territory Labor government claiming that the Stronger Futures legislation introduced in 2012 was racist. I ask: racist to who? The drunks? The victims of financial and physical abuse? Was it racist to the children who are born with FASD and have to live with the disorder for the rest of their lives? What was an emergency is now a crisis. I will hold to account this federal Labor government for the failings of the Territory government, because they are one party and they have power over vulnerable constituents.

Meanwhile, communities like Borroloola's are expressing grave concerns about the return of alcohol and going back to the old ways. I call on the federal Labor government to hold to account their Territory counterparts, as the member for Lingiari has so bravely done, for their failure to reduce alcohol-led harm and violence despite the coalition's billions of dollars of investment, in the name of human rights for all Territorians. These are the practical measures that I'm focused on for all Territorians: holding to account those who have been funded to deliver services and save lives but who have failed. (Time expired)

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:58): More than one thousand people have died in truck crashes since the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was abolished by the Liberal-National government in 2016. There's a whole lot of blood on the hands of every person in this chamber who voted to abolish the RSRT and replace it with nothing.

Senator Cash: Standing up for small business, Tony!

Senator SHELDON: And you were warned, because my friend the late senator Alex Gallacher said during the abolition debate in 2016, 'Lots of these owner-drivers will work themselves to death'—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Cash!

Senator SHELDON: and that's exactly what has happened. Things are only getting worse, with Amazon and now FedEx driving down standards right across the industry.

We need safe rates. We need a system where owner-drivers earn enough to make a living and where companies at the top of the supply chain are held to account. When you don't earn enough to make a living you push yourself, you rush, you can't afford to maintain your vehicle properly and you put everyone on the road in danger. It's not just the Transport Workers Union saying this; owner-drivers and employer associations are crying out for reform. Frank Black, the owner-driver representative of the Australian Trucking Association, says, 'If we've got safe— (Time expired)

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): I wish to advise the chamber of changes to ministerial arrangements for today. Senator Wong is absent from question time on account of ministerial business overseas. In her absence I will represent the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister for Defence Industry.

Senator Birmingham: You'll probably get paid more than the ministers!

Senator FARRELL: That'll happen! Senator Gallagher will represent the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for the Environment and Water.