2021-11-25 1 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 25 November 2021

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Slade Brockman ) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS -1 DOCUMENTS Tabling -1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT -1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Senate Procedure -1 09:31 The PRESIDENT 30484 Before we commence today I wish to make a short statement about an issue that was raised in the chamber yesterday, which is the recording of pairing arrangements in Hansard. Basically, this practice was stopped when the Hansard reporters stopped attending the chamber during the early stages of the COVID parliaments. Without the Hansard recorders being in the chamber there was nowhere for the whips to deliver pairing arrangements to. I would remind all senators that pairing arrangements are informal arrangements between the parties. In discussions with the Clerk it is clear that there are no barriers to recommencing the recording of pairing arrangements in the Hansard if that information is delivered to the Hansard recorders, either directly or via the clerks. I've also committed to having a look at whether it is now appropriate to allow Hansard recorders to be back in the chamber. BUSINESS -1 BUSINESS Rearrangement -1 09:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That: (a) a motion relating to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women may be moved immediately by a minister; and (b) the time limit for the debate be 60 minutes, after which the question be put, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each. Question agreed to. MOTIONS -1 MOTIONS International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women -1 09:33 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I move: That the Senate: (a) notes that— (1) today, 25 November 2021, marks the UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, beginning the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, and (2) in Australia, on average, a woman is killed by a partner every 11 days, and one in five women has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15; (b) commends the joint efforts made by governments, stakeholders and providers under the current National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; (c) acknowledges that the next national plan must be an ambitious blueprint to end family, domestic and sexual violence in all forms; and (d) recognises that ending violence against women requires a national effort by all governments, workplaces, schools, communities and individuals. As we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, I would like to take a moment to remember and to pay our respects to the women and children who are victims and survivors of violence. There are the names and the faces that we do know; however, there are many, many more who have endured, over many years, great pain in the shadows and in the silence iolence against women and children is never acceptable. It is a global issue that affects everyone, everywhere. Too many women and children are not safe at home, in the workplace, at school or online. We know gender inequality is the root cause of violence against women and we must work across our society, including with men and boys, to change social norms, attitudes and behaviours to eliminate gender inequality. Globally, the statistics tell us that one in three women aged 15 or older have experienced sexual or physical violence, and we know the figures in Australia that are recorded in the motion. The statistics, though, can't tell us the true stories of the pain, the fear, the anguish and the suffering that led to the derivation of such numbers, and it must stop. We know the COVID-19 pandemic has also impacted progress on gender equality here and around the world, both in women's economic empowerment and in women's safety. Over the course of the pandemic violence against women and girls has increased. Physical distancing and lockdowns have made it harder for many to seek and to receive help. The government has during the course of this pandemic delivered very significant levels of resources towards Australian women's safety and then further delivered resources on economic security, on health and wellbeing and to support women to realise their full potential. In our 2021-2022 Women's Budget Statement we invested a record $1.1 billion in women's safety, in part in partnership with the states and territories because it included $260 million for new national partnership agreements with state and territory jurisdictions to increase the capacity of frontline support in crisis services. We are now developing the next national plan to end violence against women and children as a blueprint to end violence in all forms. Minister Ruston and I continue to work with the state and territory governments to drive that change in women's safety through the National Federation Reform Council's Taskforce on Women's Safety. A key focus of that work is the next national plan. The first national plan was formed in a non-partisan way through this parliament and the work of governments and oppositions in the states and territories. Shifting the dial on violence requires a national effort by all governments—indeed, I would say all parliaments—workplaces, schools, communities and individuals. The government is committed to ensuring that Australian workplaces are safe and free from sexual harassment. We commissioned the Respect@Work report, and the government's Roadmap for Respect responds to the recommendations in the Respect@Work report. We've committed over $66 million in the last two budgets for the implementation of the road map. As I've said in this place and elsewhere, a number of the events of this year have been disturbing and distressing not just to me or the people in this place but to many Australians, and most particularly to those who have suffered. Stories of violence against women and children are always hard to hear. But we have to listen particularly to victims-survivors to inform our way forward. In our jobs as elected representatives in particular very few of us after a period of time would be in a position where we had not heard from someone, somewhere their own disturbing experience or the experience of their family member or friend—too many stories. On this day I invite us to consider the significant challenges in our region, which has some of the highest rates of intimate partner violence in the world and some of the most horrific stories I have ever heard in my life. Sixty-eight per cent of women in the Pacific and 40 per cent of women in South-East Asia had experienced violence by an intimate partner before the pandemic. Addressing gender based violence is a key priority for Australia's aid and humanitarian programs. We've provided UN Women with $10 million in funding to support essential services for survivors and to deliver prevention activities. We're contributing to the UN Population Fund to conduct studies on tackling violence against women as well. We're working alongside, for example, the government of Timor-Leste, through the Nabilan program, on prevention activities to stop violence before it starts. This is an area in which I have had some association since the ballot for Timor-Leste's independence in 1999, where these issues were prevalent, disturbing and a significant challenge for those communities. In the Pacific, Australia supports 15 crisis centres across eight countries, providing safe accommodation, counselling, and medical and legal support. Last week Australia joined the United Kingdom—and I acknowledge the work of my friend and colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Liz Truss—in condemning the use of sexual violence and rape as weapons of war, and we strongly support the important work of the UN representative for sexual violence in conflict. Now, more than ever, we need to stand together to address and to prevent gender based violence in Australia and worldwide. This year, and every year, we remember those we have lost—victim-survivors and those working to end violence against women and girls, particularly those on the front line. 09:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise to speak today on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This day comes in the context of a profound shift in this country but also distressing setbacks abroad. We watched, the world watched, in disbelief and in distress the fall of Kabul and the return to Taliban rule of Afghanistan. It was distressing for us all. But for women everywhere there was an additional poignancy, and for women from and of Afghanistan there was great anguish. For 20 years, since the fall of the Taliban, gains were made, and the women of Afghanistan who had been brutally repressed fought for their agency and autonomy. They could access education. They became politicians, judges, policewomen, teachers. They could work outside the home, and many could provide for themselves and their families rather than simply being controlled by male guardians. They were starting to have a chance to shape their own lives and shape the future of their country. With the return of the Taliban, it's likely that little if any of this progress can endure, and already we've seen restrictions on media and education for women and girls and a return to limits on the free movement of women. I've spoken with many Afghan women in Australia—trailblazers, community leaders and patriots—all deeply proud of their heritage and often lost for words as they witness the return of a regime whose brutal repression of women the world knows too well. This is a story that through our history has been repeated too often, and it is why Australia must always not only take the world as it is but work to shape it for the better, including to work in every way we are able for the equality of women and for the elimination of violence against women and girls. Here in Australia violence against women remains pervasive. We've said these statistics so many times—one in five have been sexually assaulted or threatened, one in four experience emotional abuse by a current or previous partner, on average a woman is killed by a current or former partner every week. These facts haven't changed for years. What is hard is we keep saying them. Of course, behind every one of those numbers is a tragic story, a tragic loss. One of the most moving events I have ever been to was outside of the state Parliament House, where we read through the list of women who had been killed in these circumstances. We said their names and we held up a corflute for each of them. It is a reminder of what there is behind the statistics. Of course, the numbers also don't capture the trauma that many survivors endure. How is it that today in this country we still have women and children fleeing violence turned away from shelters? How is it that today in this country we still have women resorting to sleeping in their cars, on their friends' sofas or, worst of all, returning to danger? It used to take an average of three weeks to find someone in crisis a secure home. It takes two years now. For these and so many other reasons, it would be easy to be despondent, but let's choose to be determined. Let's choose to be determined not because of those who, frankly, have offered too many platitudes and too much cynical political management in response to a profound moment of reckoning in this country; let's choose hope because of the many extraordinary women who are driving this reckoning, and their allies. I choose hope because of young women like Grace Tame, Brittany Higgins, Chanel Contos and so many others who chart a path and offer hope to other victims-survivors—women who understand change doesn't mean telling people you absolutely are committed to something; it means doing it. I wish that more leaders showed just a fraction of the courage, determination and principle these young women have shown. A Labor government led by Anthony Albanese will ensure women's safety is a national priority. We will appoint a Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner. We will fund—and Senator McAllister, I'm sure, will speak to this more—500 new community sector workers to support women in crisis. Surely it is beyond any partisanship that women and children fleeing violence should always have access to safe refuge, advice and guidance. When the ground disappears from under them, it is our responsibility to actually give them something to hold onto. Surely that's not beyond a country of our means. And we will build 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness, as part of our Housing Australia Future Fund. I just want to pause here and say that we get the privilege, in the jobs that we have, of meeting extraordinary people, and some of the most extraordinary people I've met are women who have gone through Catherine House, which is a service in Adelaide that I started engaging with many years ago because my partner explained to me that it was the only service at that time for women without children fleeing violence. They are extraordinary women. I regret deeply that the Liberal government in South Australia has cut their funding. They are extraordinary women, women with stories of courage, perseverance and what they have overcome—more courage than I see ever in this place. We need to back them with more than words—with funding and people to support them, because so many of them find their own path. Labor have already said we'll legislate for 10 days domestic violence leave, we'll work with the states and territories for a national definition of domestic violence that includes coercive control and we'll support early intervention to reduce family violence in First Nations communities. Colleagues and Mr President, I've been in politics for 20 years nearly, and I've given this speech or a version of it for a couple of decades now. It would just be a wonderful thing for this nation if we could actually make a difference on this. We need to remember always that it is resources, it is political commitment to deliver resources, but it is also the recognition that gender inequality is an essential prerequisite for this violence. That means all of us, and how we behave here towards each other, how we speak here about women—that matters too, and that's a responsibility too. Australian women have said, 'Enough is enough,' and they deserve a government, a parliament, political leaders, who say that too and who summon the courage and the will to turn their call into action. 09:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The theme for this year's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is simple: End Violence Against Women Now! The key facts and figures on the UN's website say that, globally, nearly one in three women have experienced physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime, and only one in 10 of those go to the police for help. Shockingly, these statistics are not that different in Australia. In Australia, one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence since they were 15. On average, one woman is killed by a current or former partner once a week, and 38 women have been killed this year. We know that because a volunteer organisation tracks those figures, not because we have a national toll of women killed, which the Greens have been pushing for, for many years. Again, we suggest it would be a very wise thing to keep this issue on the national agenda to act as a deterrent and a prevention mechanism, as part of a pool of other prevention programs. I also want to note that First Nations women experience significantly higher rates of violence throughout their lives, and my fabulous new colleague Senator Dorinda Cox will also be making a contribution on this part of the program. This year in particular has really laid bare the pervasive nature of gendered violence across Australia, whether it's in our homes, on the streets or in workplaces, including ours. Brave young women have come forward and forced this conversation onto the national agenda, building on the fabulous work of strong women like Rosie Batty in years gone by. Those brave young women are Grace Tame, Brittany Higgins, Nina Funnell, Chanel Contos, Saxon Mullins, Amani Haydar and so many others. So many, often survivors themselves, work behind the scenes to support survivors to get justice, or just peace and safety to rebuild their lives. We owe it to these women to do everything we can to end violence against women now. Stopping this violence starts with believing and listening to survivors, learning from their experience so others don't have to suffer the same harm. However, it is also recognising how long, hard and disjointed the road to recovery is, and supporting survivors and their children to heal. Stopping the violence takes systemic action to tackle root causes, transform harmful social norms and empower women and girls. We know that gender inequality and gender stereotypes foster disrespect. We know there's a correlation between the rigidity of gender stereotypes and the rates of violence. We know that you can't be what you can't see, and that workplaces like ours should be showing leadership in the representation of women in decision-making roles. We need survivor-centred essential services that understand and respect survivor experiences and don't compound the trauma when they seek help. This requires specialist services that understand the specific needs of First Nations women, young women, older women, disabled women, LGBTIQ+ women and women from culturally diverse backgrounds. We need funding to make sure that no woman is turned away, no person is turned away, from services when they need help. It boils down to this. We need some actual funding to invest in those prevention programs that start early, start in schools. We need a proper investment in housing in this nation, because not only is there no crisis housing or transitional housing—it is all full—but there is no affordable long-term accommodation either. No woman should have to choose between violence and homelessness, and that is what the services are telling me on a daily basis when I speak with them. We need funding to make sure that those services have enough people and enough beds to accommodate everyone who reaches out for help. We need to tackle the gender inequality that is driving this wave, this epidemic of violence, that got worse during COVID. I want to note that the second edition of Our Watch's toolkit 'Change the story' was released yesterday. They are our premier experts on prevention in this country, and it confirms that we must go beyond a focus on individual behaviours to consider the broader social, political and economic factors that drive violence against women. This means promoting the equal distribution of power, resources and opportunities between men and women. It confirms the connection between harmful forms of masculinity, gender inequality and violence against women, and it points to the importance of effectively engaging men and boys in prevention work. The framework outlines the essential actions that are needed at all levels of society—from schools and workplaces to governments—to address those underlying drivers and stop this violence before it starts. It calls for schools and universities to support children and young people with the knowledge they need to develop respectful and equal relationships. Yet what we got was a milkshake video. We need a strong investment in evidence based, age-appropriate, respectful relationships education, from early childhood education and care onwards. Our Watch calls for Australian employers to take the necessary actions to ensure that women feel and are safe, valued and respected when they go to work. Yet this government has so far refused to impose a positive duty on workplaces to protect workers against sexual harassment and sex based discrimination. Our Watch calls for the media to responsibly report on violence against women and help frame the issue in the context of structural gender equality. We need to get rid of the 'he said, she said' narrative—the slut-shaming and the victim blaming coming from the mouths of people in this place, from some in the media and, still, sadly, from all corners of society. It's critical that the new national plan is informed by victims-survivors, and I would like to thank the amazing group of victim-survivor advocates who have been working to ensure the government establishes and supports a victim-survivor advisory group. This is essential if the national plan is going to properly reflect, respect and learn from their experience. In addition to ending violence against women, the national plan needs a particular focus on recovery. Victims-survivors and their families often carry the burden of abuse long after escaping. It continues to affect their mental health, economic security, confidence, sense of worth and ability to engage in work and society. Broken confidence can then lead them into other abusive relationships and perpetuate a cycle of violence. An investment in trauma recovery is essential to help victims-survivors rebuild. We recently had the Women's Safety Summit. This was a showpiece of the government's response to women's safety. It was criticised by many groups as a talkfest that spoke more about what we already knew then what the government was going to do about it. The summit statement made clear that there needs to be more funding, more trauma-informed and survivor-centred approaches, more preventative actions and more homes—the very things that I outlined at the start of this speech. It's not the first time the sector has called for these things, and I fear it will not be the last. The government needs to start listening to those calls and build upon its often-encouraging words with some meaningful actions of the quantum that is required. On housing, the Women's Safety Summit was particularly clear: affordable and accessible short- and long-term housing is fundamental so that women aren't choosing between abusive relationships and homelessness. We need a serious investment in this nation to put roofs over people's heads and to ensure victims-survivors have somewhere to go when they escape. We know that older women are the fastest-growing group of people who are homeless in this nation, and we know that women escaping violence often have nowhere to go. In some cases they're being put up in hotels with no wraparound supports. We desperately need genuine investment, not just a small amount but the real amount that the sector says is requires. The sector is calling for $12 billion over the 12 years of the life of the next national plan. That's what it has long called for. That is the amount that is needed, and anything less will see people turned away from those services when they seek help. That is reprehensible and utterly avoidable. On First Nations women, I want to note that Change the Record has today released a report, Pathways to safety. It is a strong, passionate and sensible call for a self-determined First Nations national women's safety plan. First Nations women know how to keep their children and communities safe. We need a national plan that listens to them, that is co-written by them and that provides the tools that they need to end violence against First Nations women and their children. I want to finish my contribution by paying tribute to the workers in this sector. Of course, our hearts break for the innumerable women who have been killed, and I thank the individuals who bear that trauma in supporting those women and children on a daily basis, often on a tiny wage, working far more hours than an ordinary worker because they care so deeply. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge Angela Lynch, who has been the CEO of the Women's Legal Service, who has announced her retirement after 20 years in the field. Thank you, Angela, for your amazing contribution. You've saved so many lives. Go well in the future. 10:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I'd like to associate the National Party with the contributions made today on this important topic. A few weeks ago, grieving parents Lloyd and Sue Clarke were nominated for Queensland Australians of the Year. They were nominated in recognition of their efforts to halt the cycle of domestic and family violence so that all Australians can feel respected and safe. The story behind their nomination is tragic, but, sadly, as we know, too common. After the shocking loss of their daughter, Hannah Clarke, and grandchildren Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey in February last year, Sue and Lloyd founded Small Steps 4 Hannah in a bid to educate Australia about coercive control and domestic violence. The murder of Hannah Clarke and her children was a line-in-the-sand moment in Australia, where members of the community came together and said that, where domestic and family violence is concerned, enough is enough. Anti-family-violence campaigner and 2015 Australian of the Year Rosie Batty rose above her tragedy, the great loss of her 11-year-old son, Luke, to domestic violence, and was able to put domestic violence on the national agenda. On this International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, it is crucial that as a government we provide education and support services, in partnership with states and territories, to protect women who are at risk of violence. No matter where you live, you deserve to have equal access to these services. The National Party knows that women in regional and rural Australia face unique circumstances due to their geographical location. Sadly, our women in the regions are more likely to experience domestic and family violence than women in urban areas. Our government, the Liberal and the National parties, are committed to ensuring these services are readily available. We've taken this matter incredibly seriously and delivered more than $1 billion of initiatives around women's safety, including $164 million in financial assistance to individuals, through escaping violence payments; $260 million for new partnership agreements; and a raft of other initiatives. We provide ongoing funding to specialist domestic violence units. We know that there are many barriers that victims of domestic violence face and we know that there is no simple answer. That is why we'll continue to listen to the voices of those who know. We're now developing the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Children, and today we announced an investment of $2.8 million over three years for the women's voices project. That will include a national summit for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, chaired by June Oscar. The next national plan is currently in development, and I'm sure Senator Ruston will have more to say about that. We can as men and women in this place and as leaders in our own communities—and many of us as parents can raise our sons and our daughters to respect others—stand up and call out bad behaviour as we go about our business as senators, and be respectful to each other and demonstrate and live those values not just at home but in our workplace. We can always do more and we are committed. Behind every statistic in a tragic story. We'll continue to listen to those stories to provide any necessary support to these victims and help them to recover. 10:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It marks the beginning of 16 days of activism against violence. But, for a brave group of victim-survivors who have been leading our public conversation, every day has been a day of activism. Some of them have had a public platform and others have had quiet conversations with friends, but all of them are incredible. I would like to start my remarks by thanking them for their advocacy and their insight. You have had the strength and the generosity to take your own experiences of abuse and trauma and to use them to drive change and to improve the lives of other women and children, and we are so lucky and so grateful to hear from you. We are so lucky and so grateful to hear from you. But the responsibility for change cannot lie solely with the victims of violence. As a community, we have a responsibility to come together and play our part in stopping family, domestic and sexual violence. It is a national crisis and a national shame that one in four women have experienced family violence, and one in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Australian police deal with a domestic violence matter every two minutes, with an estimated 657 domestic violence matters, on average, every single day of the year. They are sad statistics. These women are our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters, friends, neighbours and colleagues. They all have the right to live their lives safely and free from violence. Violence of this nature does not just have a single victim. We also know how the threat of violence and witnessing violence affects children. It causes trauma that may profoundly affect that child's development. If we want a better, safer future for our daughters and our sons, we need to press for action and take action ourselves. Yesterday, I was proud to stand with our leader, Anthony Albanese, and announce our plan to fund 500 new community sector workers to support women in crisis, with half of those placed in rural and regional communities. Leaving a violent relationship is the hardest and most dangerous thing that many people will ever do. We know that having a community sector worker standing beside you helps make all the difference. But, right now, women fleeing violence are turned away from services because there are not enough workers to help them. The services I speak to across the country at the front line when it comes to supporting women at this time of great peril tell me how much more they could do with an extra pair of hands. Last week, I visited the Women's Cottage in Richmond with my colleague from the other place the member for Macquarie, Ms Susan Templeman. Currently, the Women's Cottage has only one part-time domestic violence caseworker. Despite her best efforts, she really cannot meet demand, and the waiting list continues to grow. Based on demand for their services, they say they could easily benefit from two full-time workers. The manager, Maria Losurdo, tells us that ongoing casework resources would mean that their advocacy and support would no longer be limited or short term. They could walk closely with women through the hardest part of their journey after escaping violence and provide them with the support they need to find safety and re-establish their lives. These concrete announcements and commitments matter. In 2007, Labor came into government determined to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and children. We created the first national plan to reduce violence against women and their children. The first few years of that plan, Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin, Julie Collins, Kate Ellis, Tanya Plibersek and other Labor women made the most of this opportunity. We saw the creation of a national hotline, 1800RESPECT; a violence prevention body, Our Watch; and the Australian National Research Organisation for Women's Safety, ANROWS. These years represented the most productive and progressive for women's safety. This is the kindest way that I can say this—that enthusiasm and progress did not survive the 2013 change of government. The first minister for women under the coalition government in 2013 was Mr Abbott. That action set the tone for the eight years to follow. It should go without saying that a commitment to end violence is nonpartisan. I appreciate the remarks from colleagues across the chamber today. But, as an opposition, we owe it to our communities to be honest when worthy objectives are not supported by meaningful action. Yesterday, Labor again committed to national leadership on this issue. We announced that an Albanese Labor government would implement a new family domestic and sexual violence commissioner. This was a recommendation from the House of Representatives inquiry into family domestic and sexual violence to deal with some of the issues of coordination and delivery that we have observed in relation to the national plan. It's part of our ongoing commitment to tackling the scourge of violence. Our focus is on providing women with the housing and the economic support that they need to establish a safe life. On any given day, women's crisis accommodation services across Australia will have to tell women fleeing violence that they have no room to house them or their children. Those women will sleep in a car or will go back to a dangerous situation, because they have no other choice. How is this acceptable? Labor recognise the extent of this problem. It's why we will allocate an additional 4,000 units of social housing to women and children experiencing family violence and to women on lower incomes at risk of homelessness as part of our Housing Australia Future Fund. We will also provide $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for these women. This gives survivors of violence a chance to rebuild their lives. No woman should have to choose between keeping her job and leaving an abusive situation. We will establish 10 days paid domestic violence leave. We know that employment is enormously protective. A job means social connections with colleagues. It means financial security. It means independence and self-worth. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have made it abundantly clear that services will be most successful when they are designed and delivered by First Nations people. They are also calling for a separate national action plan for First Nations people to end violence against women and family violence. Labor supports this call. These are practical solutions advocated by people who work every day to support women and children at their time of greatest need. Labor is committed to action and to bringing down the rates of violence in our communities. Over the years there have been too many words and too little action, especially from our national leaders. Acting with urgency and ambition is essential if we are to make an impact and decrease the rates of family and domestic violence. I began my contribution today by reflecting on the impact of the advocacy and insights of victim-survivors of domestic and family violence. The Australian community owes a great deal to these people, who have experienced the most horrible of situations but are relentless in their efforts to improve the lives of other women and other children. We should do everything in our power to avoid adding to their numbers. 10:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak about a very important issue that every Australian needs to take responsibility for, on this, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Before I start, I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people. I also acknowledge Indigenous people in this place and Indigenous people who may be listening. I acknowledge those who have lost their lives at the hands of an intimate partner, and I acknowledge those that have survived but bear the scars of what has happened to them. Family, domestic and sexual violence is everybody's business. We cannot go forward as a nation and end violence against all Australian women and children—against all Australians—unless every single Australian takes responsibility for ending violence. We must change the attitudes of Australians so that they understand the damage that is done when violence is perpetrated in its very many forms. To do so, we have to understand respect. We have to respect each other, and we have to understand the impact that our words and actions have on other Australians. As we know, not all disrespect ends in violence, but you can be absolutely assured that all violence starts with disrespect. That is why we, collectively, are committed to the delivery of the next national plan to end violence against women and their children. We have embarked on a significant consultation process, because everybody's voice needs to be heard, and everybody's voice needs to be listened to. It is exceptionally important that we listen to the voices of First Nations women and girls. That is why today we made an announcement, in conjunction with June Oscar, Marcia Langton, Sandra Creamer and a number of other very strong Indigenous women, to say that the voices of women and girls need to be heard and that we must make sure we have a dedicated action plan for First Nations women and girls which is informed by the voices of their people and which is delivered by their people for their people. I would now like to tell a story. One Friday night earlier this month, emergency services were called to a fire at a residence in the Hidden Valley town camp in the Northern Territory. Most of the fire had been extinguished by the time the emergency services arrived, and the alleged victim, a 34-year-old woman, had suffered extensive burns and, sadly, died two days later. A police officer in the Alice Springs criminal investigation unit told journalists: 'The woman, a mother, was known to be at risk of domestic violence. We believe there was fuel used in the fire and we believe the fire was started as a result of a fight.' The alleged offender, a 36-year-old man, was the woman's partner and he too died several days later as a result of burns. Last week when I visited the Northern Territory in my role as women's safety minister, just about every single person said to me, 'Where was the national outrage?' What occurred in the Northern Territory on that Friday night was an utter tragedy, and something that shocked—and should shock—every Australian to their very core. There absolutely should be national outrage, but there wasn't. We know the statistics in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women when it comes to family, domestic and sexual violence are so disproportionately overrepresented in comparison to non-Indigenous women. That is why we must listen to the voices of Indigenous women and girls, to make sure that their solutions to this problem are delivered. I acknowledge today Senator Cox and Senator Thorpe. I have been in discussions with them in relation to making sure that we inquire into these missing and murdered women. These women have the right for the rest of Australia to understand what has happened to them. We support you, Senators. Across the whole of the landscape of Australia, we need to continue to invest. We need to invest in leadership. We need to make sure that we have a coordinated approach to domestic violence, because we need to make sure that every single cent, every single resource, every single activity that we deliver in this space is targeted to the outcome—that is, supporting women and children in this country who are either at risk of domestic violence or victims of domestic violence. That is why the single largest commitment, the $1.1 billion that was made in the 2021-22 budget, is a down payment on the next national plan to end violence against women and their children is so important. The Commonwealth needs to take a leadership role. That was why yesterday, as a result of the recommendations that came out of the consultation process, the House inquiry into domestic violence as well as the national summit, we acted on the recommendation for a domestic violence commission and commissioner. To make sure we take a coordinated approach, we need to improve coordination, we need to have transparency, we need to have accountability. This problem is a shared responsibility, and the best way to make sure that we make best use of all resources is if we coordinate that approach. We will make sure we have a properly funded commission with the horsepower, the resources and the staff to make sure we can truly deliver on that commitment to make sure that we deliver on everything that we say. We also need to make sure that we stop violence before it happens in the first place. That's why we must focus on respect and consent. We need our young Australians, we need our children to understand that they must grow up being respectful of each other, because only then will we embed respect and consent into the national psyche so that we can actually start reducing the number of people and eventually end up with a future Australia free of gender-based violence. This is the Australia that I think every single person sitting in this chamber aspires to achieve. So we have to deal with prevention, but we also have to deal with early intervention. We must meet this crisis early on, so we need to focus on making sure we are addressing perpetrators. We cannot only deal with response, no matter how important response is. We must deal with early interventions. Of course we must deal with the response—that's why we put $260 million into an ENPA over the next two years, to make sure frontline services are able to respond, and why 450 organisations have benefited from the $130 million that was provided last year. We continue to invest in things like safe places so that women and children have a safe place to go when they make that brave decision to escape a violent relationship. But we also need to make sure that, where we can, we are keeping women and children in their homes so they have the support mechanisms of their families, their friends and their schools. The perpetrators are the ones who should be punished for what happens here. We must, wherever it's safe to do so, make sure that the woman does not become the person who's punished. We must make sure that it is the perpetrators who are held to account for their actions, so we should focus on keeping women safe in their homes, where it is possible and safe to do so, and we will. We also need to make sure that, when women do make that brave decision to escape violence and it isn't safe for them to stay home, we provide them with the resources to set up a safe place. That's why our escaping violence payment program, which was announced during the budget, provides women escaping violence with $5,000. They can put that towards a start to make sure that they can create a safe place for themselves and their children. But we also need to make sure that we stay with women who are victims of domestic violence through the entire recovery phase. We need to make sure that we support them to get well and that we support them back into work. We need to understand that recovery is also tremendously important. To the chamber, I say: this government is absolutely committed to driving towards an Australia that is free of all gender based violence. We are absolutely committed to it, and I believe that our track record of investment suggests that we are. We are very close to the finalisation of the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, and the most important thing that I believe that we need to do is to make sure that it is the voices of victims and survivors that inform what we do going forward. The voices of the brave, brave women and children of Australia who have come forward and told their stories must inform the next national plan. What I would like to say today to the women and girls of Australia is: this government is listening to you. 10:21 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The greatest and most direct impact of family violence is on our women, trans women and sistergirls. Violence against women, particularly First Nations women, is not inevitable. It can and must be prevented. We must work together to do this—all of us, not just across this parliament but every single one of us. Violence against women is not a woman's problem; it is a social problem. That is why every single one of us has to play a part in the solutions. To be effective, solutions to ending violence against women, particularly our women—our matriarchs—must be both culturally safe and holistic, because the solutions must be careful and safe. They must be self-determined by our women, for our women. We need self-determined solutions at every stage, from prevention to early intervention, response, recovery and healing. Every single response must take a holistic approach that addresses not only the immediate problems we face but also the underlying socio-economic factors which we did not cause but which contribute to this violence. There can be nothing about us without us. That is why, if any solution is to work, it must be culturally safe and self-determined. Mainstream approaches to ending violence do not engage with the issues surrounding cultural trauma caused by dispossession, land theft, the forced separation from our families and the attempts to destroy our cultures. These are all legacies of colonisation, and they must be reckoned with. First Nations women want a standalone national plan and a standalone national summit where we can inform that plan—self-determined and ensuring that we include community controlled family violence prevention legal services, health services and other Aboriginal community controlled health organisations. Finally, all violence prevention responses must take a human rights approach, centred on our right to self-determination, and facilitate the necessary cultural healing needed to be successful. Cultural healing that is based on the strength and resilience of our peoples and cultures must be at the heart of any violence prevention measures. The Australian Greens, through my colleague Senator Cox and I, acknowledge and hear the cries of our women and children. We hear the cries for systemic change, to prevent any more black women or black children being murdered. Today we are proposing a motion, which the minister spoke about. I might add that our conversations over the last 24 hours have been—it's incredible how we can get stuff done in this place when people take the time to listen. To have the support of the government for an inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women and children in this country is historic, I believe, and I want to thank the government, particularly the minister, for listening and for acting on such an important issue that our women have been fighting for for so long. Our women have the right to live their lives in safety, with full human dignity and free from all forms of violence, including family violence. I pay my respects and I honour our women and the struggles and the trauma that they face every day, and I particularly honour those who have lost their lives. After Senator Cox and I spoke to the minister last night, we talked about women in our families who had been murdered who've had no justice because they weren't important enough for investigations to happen around those murders. The woman that was murdered in my family was carried by the perpetrator and dumped on the front lawn of her mother's house in Morwell, Gippsland, Victoria. Because there was substance abuse involved in that family, the police response was that they were drunks. No-one was held accountable, and that woman, my cousin, was left dead on the front lawn of her mother's house in Morwell. I'm going to use a minute to sit in silence and reflect on all of those women and children who died at the hands of not only the system that didn't protect them but by the perpetrators who did the wrong thing and were not held accountable. I respect the chamber and ask the chamber to have a moment of silence. Honourable senators observed a moment of silence— 10:29 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I have a funny feeling that the two of us might have been about to rise and say something similar. We have heard some incredibly thoughtful, heartfelt contributions across this chamber. They are important contributions and reflections on a very important issue of relevance to our society in Australia and right around the world, particularly in some nations that I know Senator Payne and Senator Wong, in particular, reflected upon. It's right that we have heard those contributions and it is also right that we have listened to those contributions. By 'we' I reflect particularly upon the men of this chamber. To date in this debate, we have heard from the many thoughtful, powerful leading women who lead our nation. We are fortunate, across all of our parties, to have these voices here with us. It is something this chamber should be so proud of in terms of the changed reflection that has occurred here with the composition of this chamber even in my time here and over an even longer period of time. While it is right that we listen as men and that we hear the voices of women, it is also right that we take responsibility, that we show leadership and that we not be silent on these matters. As men we too should be clear that change is needed. Change to culture is needed, and that change comes from leadership, from our own behaviours, by setting an example, by calling out what is unacceptable, by making sure—as current campaigns indicate—that we stop it at the start. We need to stop it at the start in terms of domestic violence, gender based violence and violence that does afflict the lives of far too many families. We need to stop it at the start because we know from the research there are intergenerational aspects in relation to gender based and family based violence. In doing so, we take a stand as men alongside women, alongside all, in ensuring that we heed the messages in this motion and that we don't just listen but act. I thank the women of this chamber and the many women advocates across Australia, particularly the victim-survivors and their families across Australia, for their advocacy, persistence, the dedication that they have shown and for the manner in which, over a long period of time, so many women have helped to change attitudes, change awareness and make sure that we all understand the need to take a greater sense of responsibility. The PRESIDENT 30484 To give assent to the motion, I ask that senators rise for a moment of silence to acknowledge those who have lost their lives and those who are survivors of domestic violence. Honourable senators having stood in their places— Question agreed to. 10:33 The PRESIDENT 30484 I thank the chamber. We will now return to the order of business. BILLS -1 BILLS Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021 -1

Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021

Second Reading -1 10:33 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise in continuation of my remarks with respect to this piece of legislation, the Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021. At the commencement of my remarks, I referred to the very troubling case of a Mr Brookman, who was convicted under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act for services he provided in Syria. He was convicted of those offences and sentenced on 23 June 2021, but there were 342 emergency management days of remissions immediately deducted from his sentence, which resulted in Mr Brookman being immediately released. It wasn't until 6 July 2021, some 13 days later, that an interim control order could be imposed with regard to Mr Brookman to mitigate the risk that Mr Brookman, given his past offending, represented to the community. I think that example brings into stark relief the issues this bill is seeking to address. There are five further matters I want to deal with in the continuation of my contribution. The first is for this place to note that we're talking here about federal offences and persons convicted under federal offences. The reality of the situation is that this issue of remission arising from so-called emergency management days only occurs in Victoria, so there is an inequality in the application of those remission days across the country. I put it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President Askew, convictions under those federal offences, the application of remission should not be dependent upon which state jurisdiction a particular prisoner is in custody. The second point I want to make is around the uncertainty that the use of emergency management days presents with release dates. We saw that in stark relief in the case of Mr Brookman with the uncertainty which is presented when we have the application of these emergency management days. The third point I want to make is the 342 emergency management days which were remitted off the head sentence of Mr Brookman were, in fact, arising out of the COVID pandemic emergency. The COVID pandemic emergency and the impact it had on Mr Brookman whilst in remand was considered by the sentencing judge, so the application of an additional 342 emergency management days represents a doubling up of that being considered in the sentence to be served by Mr Brookman. It wasn't as if the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was not considered; it was, in fact, considered by the sentencing judge and in her sentencing remarks. But the reality was there was no appreciation at the time of sentencing that these 342 emergency management days would be taken off the sentence. Previous speakers, in particular Senator Thorpe, referred to the retrospective nature of the legislation. This was a very good point to raise because the practice is and the practice should always be that, as a general principle, legislation should not seek to have retrospective effect in matters such as this. However, that is a general principle and it was carefully considered by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when we conducted our review of the legislation. Paragraph 2.31 of our report says: The committee draws to the Commonwealth government's attention concerns raised during the course of this inquiry about the retrospective application of the bill. The committee notes, however, that on balance— And these matters are always a question of balance. these concerns do not outweigh the clear advantages associated with ensuring greater certainty that sentencing decisions for federal offenders are not reduced or amended. This is particularly the case when these offenders continue to pose a serious risk to the community. Moreover, the committee notes that the bill would not authorise the removal of remissions granted to offenders who have already been released from custody. Those are two key points for the consideration of this chamber of the retroactive application of the bill. Firstly, it doesn't seek to impose retroactive application to those who have already been released. Secondly, with respect to those who have not been released, this chamber has a duty, an obligation in my view, to balance the retroactive application of the bill on the one hand with the threat to community on the other. In my view, in this case, as an exception to the general rule, the balance falls in favour of the passage of this bill to ensure that we don't have any more cases such as Mr Brookman, who was convicted for performing so-called services in Syria, sentenced to six years and eight months in prison only to find that, with the application of 342 emergency management days of remission, he was immediately released into the community without the federal government having an opportunity to seek an appropriate control order. With that, I commend this bill to the chamber. 10:40 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I thank senators for their contribution to the debate on this important bill. The Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021 will enhance community safety by addressing the unacceptable and unjust consequences of remissions that Victoria is granting to federal offenders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of section 19AA and the application of emergency management days in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is that many federal offenders who are incarcerated in Victoria—including terrorists, child sex offenders and drug traffickers—are receiving substantial discounts off the sentence expiry date set by the sentencing court. Removing the automatic recognition of these remissions, known as emergency management days, will ensure that federal offenders serve the sentence as set down by the court at sentencing, regardless of the state or territory in which they serve that sentence. It will promote community safety and achieve certainty about the release date for offenders. I thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for their careful consideration of the bill. The government welcomes the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that the bill pass and does not accept the recommendations made by the Australian Greens in its dissenting report. The government agrees with the committee that, on balance, the concerns about retrospective application do not outweigh the clear advantages of ensuring greater certainty that sentencing decisions for federal offenders are not reduced or amended, especially where offenders continue to pose a serious risk to the community. The bill restores certainty about the end date of a federal offender's sentence, so the matters relating to retrospectivity don't change that in the slightest, and it allows agencies and prisoners to plan the rehabilitation process ahead of their release. The circumstances that allowed high-risk federal offenders to serve shorter sentences than those set down by the courts in Victoria must not occur again. Keeping Australians safe is the government's highest priority, and this bill ensures that offenders who are in prison from the time of commencement will not receive any remissions off their sentences and will instead serve the sentence that the court considered at sentencing was appropriate for them in light of their circumstances, their offending and their risk profile to the community. The bill addresses the significant risks to community safety and unacceptable and unjust consequences of high numbers of emergency management days being granted by Victoria during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again, I thank senators for their contribution to the debate, and I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281558 The question is that this bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:47]
(Acting Deputy President—Senator Askew)

23 AYES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Patrick, R. L. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 7 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading -1 10:50 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281558 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 10:50 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 -1

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

10:50 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021, and I move the amendment that has been circulated in the name of Senator Brown: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes: (i) that the proposed pilot remote engagement program is intended to replace the current remote employment program, the Community Development Program (CDP), (ii) that the Government is the architect of the current failed CDP and the bill again delays long-overdue changes to this program, (iii) concerns that this bill could entrench a welfare model, rather than job creation, economic development and self-determination, and (iv) that this bill does not address fundamental issues in remote Australia such as housing and essential services; and (b) calls on the Government to adopt Labor's policy of a remote employment program with real jobs, proper wages with full conditions, and meaningful community control". This bill, and its remote engagement pilot program, was the government's first test of its commitment made to First Nations people on closing the gap. Let's be clear: it has failed the test. The Prime Minister was very happy to stand in the parliament and talk all about the government's new partnership with First Nations peoples 'to fundamentally change how governments and First Nations people work together to achieve reform'. But this bill does not measure up, because the government failed to consult with the people affected by the bill. This bill discredits the partnership agreement the government made with the Coalition of Peaks and the First Nations people they represent. And it's very on-brand, isn't it, for the Prime Minister: always an announcement, never a deliverable. Rather than consulting with First Nations people, rather than delivering a remote employment service that will create jobs and economic development and rather than addressing the underlying challenge of living in remote Australia, the government has decided to delay any change to the status quo and conduct a two-year pilot program. This is years after senators in this place—Senator McCarthy, Senator Dodson and I, as well as others—participated in a wideranging senate inquiry into the CDP, which was when the then minister, Minister Scullion, told us he was going to reform the CDP. So where are we? We have a pilot program and further delays. Living in remote Australia is becoming increasingly more challenging. On average, remote Australians have shorter lives, higher levels of disease and injury and poorer access to health services than people living in metropolitan areas. This is caused by multiple factors. In addition to a lack of real jobs, there is a lack of adequate housing and a lack of access to essential services. These are real challenges. AIHW data from 2018 shows that almost one in five Indigenous Australians is living in chronically overcrowded housing. Nationally, it's 18 per cent of First Nations people, compared to just five per cent of the general population. The level of overcrowding increases with remoteness, affecting over 20 per cent of adults in regional areas and over 48 per cent of adults in remote communities. The highest levels of overcrowding in Australia occur in remote Northern Territory areas. On the basis of the 2016 census, about 27,600 Aboriginal Territorians live in overcrowded houses, and 10,700 of those people are considered homeless. This overcrowding and lack of adequate housing affects every aspect of community life. It increases the levels of domestic violence and suicide. It impacts on mental health. It increases a lack of safety, poor hygiene and the spread of disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing the issue of overcrowding has never been more important. This problem is well known at all levels of government, and it is a continuing national shame. This bill continues that shame. It is an immense disappointment. Last year, the government signed up to revised targets in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, including a reduction of overcrowded housing. This bill fails that test. Nothing will fundamentally change for CDP participants in remote communities. What remote Australians are being offered, without consultation, is a two-year trial of new ways to undertake work-like activities. We don't know what 'work-like activity' means, but we do know that it won't mean real jobs. We don't know who will be eligible to participate in the trial, but we do know that these volunteers must stay on JobSeeker. The new remote engagement program is just another Work for the Dole scheme; it is not a new employment service. It is unbelievable that the government continues down this path. It will not be replacing the CDP with a program targeting job and skill development. It's just undertaking a rebranding exercise. The two-year pilot is a rebranding exercise. It is the CDP by another name. A Labor government will replace the CDP with a genuine remote employment program, one that puts in place the best elements of the community development employment program, a program that creates real local jobs with proper wages and conditions and offers meaningful community control and a pathway to self-determination. When the CDEP was operating in remote Australia jobseekers could do more than just receive their unemployment benefits. They could take on real local jobs created and administered by local First Nations communities and be paid at around the national minimum hourly rate. The CDEP offered a genuine alternative to being on welfare. There were flow on benefits for remote communities: meaningful control, a pathway to self-determination, a scheme operated under a flexible funding model that allowed communities to complete self-identified projects. This government appears to genuinely have a problem with the idea of Indigenous self-determination. I remind the Senate that the CDP was designed and implemented by this government. It is a broken and discriminatory program and it has been operating under various iterations since 2015. It's a remote Work for the Dole program. It's much harsher, with many more compliance requirements than are expected of jobseekers in other regions of Australia. I have seen with my own eyes the humiliating conditions that participants are subjected to, humiliating conditions for grown men and grown women literally working with garbage in some of the centres that I visited. Time and time again the government tries to fiddle with the requirements of the CDP to make it less onerous, but it cannot be fixed. The Senate inquiry into the effectiveness and appropriateness of the CDP found that the program was an abject failure. Expert witnesses to that inquiry argued that the CDP was discriminatory and that it actually acted against job creation. The CDP was acting as a pool of cheap labour. These experts also said that the CDP was damaging, because more than 50 per cent of all penalties imposed on jobseekers across Australia were for people on CDP. The repeated breaches and imposed penalties resulted in the loss of income payments, causing financial distress and increasing poverty. I can well recall people fronting our committee and explaining that in their community many people just disengaged because the endless compliance requirements, the humiliations and the breaching meant that it was just not worth it. Financial distress and poverty resulted in more local crime and increased family violence. All these outcomes are well-known. They are not unknown to the government. They were acknowledged by Minister Scullion when he promised to change it years ago. Why is the government being so stubborn? Why does it continue to reinvent and rebrand this failed program? Why doesn't it listen to remote Indigenous communities and leaders? I fear that it is because the government believes it knows best for remote Australians. It was just two years ago—2019—when the government said it would get to the bottom of remote jobseeker concerns on CDP by undertaking an evaluation. That evaluation found that most participants thought that the CDP had been bad for their communities and that the high penalty rates were discouraging people from participation in these work-like activities. Here we go again—same program rebadged. Rather than responding to the concerns raised by First Nations people, the government has come into the parliament with a bill that offers more of the same. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, APO NT, told the Senate committee inquiry into this legislation that what the government still fails to understand is that CDP participants are already trained. They have worked and will work if there are jobs available. And data shows that nothing is changing for remote Indigenous communities under a Work for the Dole program. APONT also tell us that: Over the last decade the employment 'gap' between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in remote Australia has grown. Poverty, and the social harms that arise from it, have increased. I'm not surprised, because the evidence from providers we spoke to in the inquiry some years ago was that, even when people undertook training, the provider didn't maintain a register of the people that had completed the training. Even when a job did become available in the community, the provider had no way of identifying which members of that community would be suitable for that work—because actually tracking what had been accomplished in the 'work-like activities' wasn't a part of the brief for these providers. What a disgrace. Labor has many concerns with this bill and with this pilot program and they are, primarily, that it is just another government delaying tactic. It does not tackle the real challenges of living in remote Australia. It just kicks the issue down the road until after the next election. It brings back another Work for the Dole program, not a genuine remote employment service. But the bill does one thing: it will establish a remote engagement participation payment—a supplementary payment for volunteers in addition to their income support, and this payment—up to $190 a fortnight for 104 weeks—will be offered for undertaking these new 'work-like' activities. It's not for very many people. It's for 200 identified participants in the four identified pilot sites. This is not a reform, it's a delay. Only the minister knows what the compliance regime attached to this pilot will be. But we do know that participants will not be offered the normal protections of other workers, like wages, leave, entitlements and superannuation. They will not be offered traineeships or apprenticeships. They will have no guarantee of a real job at the end of the two years. And the lack of detail in the bill means we do not know whether the pilot program will be discriminatory or compatible with human rights. The minister asks us to take this government on trust. But it has broken so many promises to First Nations people, the most recent being its failure to deliver a voice to the parliament, its failure to deliver a referendum on constitutional recognition in this term of government, and its absolute failure to roll out a national vaccine strategy for First Nations people. The government cannot be trusted to improve the lives of First Nations participants on CDP. First Nations people do not need the government to adopt this delaying tactic. They are very clear: they want to be listened to, they want the CDP to end, and waiting two years is too long. They want action that addresses the challenges of remote living, challenges that affect their lives and are holding them back. A Labor government will end the CDP. We will listen to First Nations people and put in place a program that generates economic growth and creates job opportunities, because there is no substitute for paid employment. Labor respects the closing the gap approach to policy and program development. We will work with local Indigenous organisations on the kinds of local programs that will make a real difference, and our programs will be implemented by Aboriginal community controlled service providers and will include large-scale Indigenous employers in remote Australia. Their expertise will be central to the design of any new employment program This bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021, says it all. It reveals that the government has a problem with the idea of First Nations self-determination. Yet again, the government has not positively responded to the views of First Nations people. Yet again, it has adopted delaying tactics as a means of tackling a major problem, offering the parliament a slight nothingness as the way forward on addressing a big issue. We don't need two years of delay with a pilot. First Nations people have been telling this parliament and telling this government clearly and for many years that they want a new employment program implemented across the country, one that helps address the underlying challenges that are holding them back. What's the use of a trial in just four remote locations, when a good employment program should be flexible enough to be tailored to the needs of every community from the beginning? Remote Australians are tired of waiting. They should not be asked to be patient and keep waiting. The situation in remote communities is dire. We won't stand in the way of the passage of the bill. The participation payment will provide benefit for some, a small number of CDP participants in those communities. But for the other 29,500-plus active CDP jobseekers—those who are unable to volunteer for the pilot—nothing will change for them. They will not receive the participation payment and they will remain on the CDP until sometime in the future—after the next federal election, I imagine, and most likely until 2023. This is not a good outcome, and it's not how a Labor government would approach it. We will listen to First Nations people. We will work with them on a program that gets people into local jobs, gives people hope and helps end poverty in remote communities. 11:05 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I wish to speak to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. This bill proposes a pilot for a follow-up program to the current Community Development Program, or CDP. It proposes to trial new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities. The Australian Human Rights Commission has many times raised concerns that the CDP could be inconsistent with Australia's international human rights obligations. The Australian Greens welcome the move to replace the CDP, but we are concerned that this new proposed program is repeating the mistakes of the CDP. As part of the pilot, the government is introducing a new payment of between $100 and $190 per fortnight, for a maximum of two years while people do work-like activities for up to 15 hours per week. This new payment will be topping up other income support payments that people may receive. The problem is that people in the program contained in this bill are not going to get even the minimum wage for the work they are doing. This pilot program also does not give people a living wage or industrial protections because they're not considered to be employees. During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from the Australian Human Rights Centre and the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, who said: … the Bill creates another work-for-the-dole framework and is a missed opportunity to trial genuinely alternative approaches based on creating jobs and promoting the right to fair and just conditions of work. The framework established by the Bill, predicated on the concept of conditional welfare, thus risks repeating many of the mistakes of the CDP. The government tell us that they're proud of co-designing programs with First Nations people. They say that these pilots will be co-designed in partnership with the pilot communities and that the new payment will be trialled alongside other approaches to supporting people into work or training. We can't say if the principle of free, prior and informed consent as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been followed in choosing the pilot communities. What is being done here is actually not co-design. You can't call a program which has already been designed by the government and is then trialled within communities 'co-designed'. If this government has a genuine commitment to the goals of self-determination and community based governance, First Nations people need to be not just at the table but at the steering wheel from the very beginning. We need self-determination, but we also need the resources to succeed. The Australian Greens are concerned that this program focuses only on building skills and providing work experience but does not address the underlying cause of unemployment and underemployment in regional and remote areas of our country, which is the actual lack of economic and job opportunities. People can't be job ready if there are no jobs. The government needs to provide good, sustainable, economic empowerment. First Nations communities, elders, leaders and organisations have long demanded that all levels of government work in true partnership with First Nations people. There are already really good ideas out there on how to do that, just ask—ideas that come from First Nations people, just ask. The Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory have put forward their proposal: fair work and strong communities. Under this plan 12,000 jobs in community controlled organisations would be created while valuing the strength, resilience, cultural, environmental and community care that is done every day in our communities. I foreshadow second reading amendments in my name. I also advise the Senate that we will be supporting Senator Brown's second reading amendment. It is a bit rich, however, that the Labor Party are now all of a sudden claiming that they are the best friends of our people in rural, regional and remote areas, when they have come to this very chamber to support the destruction of country in the Northern Territory. It's that doublespeak? This why we need Greens in the balance of power. We would kick the Liberals out and pull Labor in to do the right thing for our people, instead of just talking the talk. We need to fundamentally change our approach to thinking about First Nations people in this country and try to find self-determined solutions, and listen to those solutions. We need a treaty—simple as that. We don't need a voice to parliament. We don't need a referendum. We can do a treaty without those things and make that part of the negotiation. We need a treaty. Decades and decades of Aboriginal people have fought, marched, rallied for a treaty. Have you ever heard of a black fella marching and rallying to jump into the Australian Constitution? I haven't and I've been going to the rallies since I was five. A treaty or treaties can acknowledge the ongoing and historical injustices of colonisation that have caused our communities to be impoverished. And a treaty can also show us the way forward as a nation. You talk about uniting—we have a party called One Nation—we do need to unite. We need peace. First Nations people want peace. A treaty would genuinely protect the rights of First Nations people. It would also protect our land and cultures. It will allow us to self-determine our own destiny. It would establish a proper framework of how we can come to decisions together. It will lead to much better outcomes. It is time you move on from making decisions for our people. You've got to stop making decisions for us. I don't make decisions for your family, why do you make decisions for mine? Why can't we make our own decisions. We know what the solutions are. We can work with the government and we can create solutions together, that's what a treaty could bring this whole nation. It is time you move on from making decisions for us. Let us make our own. The Australian Greens cannot support this bill in its current form. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) this bill replaces the Community Development Program with a new framework piloting how employment services are delivered in remote communities, particularly communities with a high number of First Nations people; (b) these pilot programs dishonour the Federal Government's commitment to formal partnerships and shared decision-making in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap as it is not clear how communities have been chosen to participate in the pilots or if the principles of free, prior, and informed consent were followed when working with these communities; (c) people in these pilot programs will not be paid a living wage for work they are required to perform and they will not be given the industrial protections available to all working people; (d) this bill is opposed by human rights organisations, Aboriginal community controlled organisations, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services; and (e) this bill does not address the underlying issue causing under-employment or unemployment in regional, remote, and very remote areas of the country; namely, the lack of economic and job opportunities". The PRESIDENT 30484 It being almost 11.15, we will hear from Senator O'Sullivan a little later on. We will move on to notices of motion. NOTICES -1 NOTICES Presentation -1 Withdrawal -1 11:15 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of five legislative instruments as listed at item 5 on today's Order of Business. COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee -1 Report -1 11:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present the 13th report for 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 13 OF 2021 25 November 2021 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip) Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip) Senator Raff Ciccone Senator Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie Senator the Hon James McGrath Senator Rex Patrick Senator the Hon Anne Ruston Secretary: Tim Bryant Ph. 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 7.20 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2021, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 3) Bill 2021, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2021 and Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2022; (b) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 January 2022 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (d) the Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2022 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021 National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021 Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes For Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Aged Care Amendment (Registered Nurses Ensuring Quality Care) Bill 2021 Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021 Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021 Customs Amendment (Controlled Trials) Bill 2021 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Candidate Eligibility) Bill 2021 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021 Fair Work Amendment (Improving Paid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies) Bill 2021 Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021 Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019 Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019 Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021 Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021 Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021 International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021 Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 Migration Amendment (Temporary Visa Extension and Reinstatements) Bill 2021 National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021 National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Transparency and Cost Recovery) Bill 2021 National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (No. 2) Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019 Spam Amendment (Unsolicited Political Communications) Bill 2021 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. (Dean Smith) Chair 25 November 2021 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Significant changes to migrant worker protections under the Migration Act, including strong concerns from a wide range of stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Unions, civil society, legal groups, migrant support groups, farmers, supermarkets, horticulture, and agriculture organisations, including Ai Group, AMES Australia, ACCI, Australian Fresh Produce Alliance, Fragomen Australia, Hammond Taylor, IARC Unions NSW, Immigration Solutions, Law Council of Australia, Migrant Worker Justice Initiative, Migrant Workers Centre, Migration Institute of Australia, NTEU, Professor Joanna Howe, Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, Redfern Legal Centre, Retail Supply Chain Alliance, Settlement Council of Australia, Salvation Army, Uniting Church, United Workers Union, WEstJustice, Woolworths, Coles and Aldi. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): TBC Possible reporting date: Monday 15 February 2022 (signed) A Urquhart Whip Selection of Bills Committee member SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To ensure the bill is consistent with recommendations of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, which reported to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation in 2019. Possible submissions or evidence from: Immigrant and migrant advocates, workers unions, recruitment industry, industry and sector peak bodies, legal experts. Committee to which bill is to be referred: SSC Education and Employment, or JSC Migration Possible hearing date(s): Inquiry to be conducted on the papers Possible reporting date: First sitting day of February 2022 (signed) Nick McKim Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The bill is materially different to the previous two iterations of the bill, both of which went to inquiry. It contains retrospectivity, engages human rights, and is possibly in breach of Australia's commitments to international obligations. Possible submissions or evidence from: Legal, human rights, and migration experts and stakeholders, e.g. Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Human Rights Law Centre, Refugee Legal, Australian Human Rights Commission, Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Refugee Council of Australia, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, and the Law Society of Australia. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): Non-sitting days in February Possible reporting date: (signed) Nick McKim SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Strengthening The Character Test) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The Bill has changed from the original version first introduced over three years ago. It now has significant implications for victims of domestic violence and needs adequate time for detailed consideration. Possible submissions or evidence from: Legal, civil society, refugee, asylum seekers, migrant support and domestic violence organisations. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): TBC Possible reporting date: 15 February 2022 (signed) A Urquhart Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms) Bill 2021 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: While the EM states that the changes made by this bill are largely technical in nature, the bill would make changes to dozens of significant and often complex Acts. It is important to fully understand the impact of any changes made to those statutory regimes, whether intended or not, and an enquiry will enable those with particular expertise to provide submissions to the Committee about those impacts. Possible submissions or evidence from: Law Council of Australia Other bodies with particular expertise in the various statutory regimes impacted by this bill. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal & Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): Given the technical nature of this bill, it is suggested that the inquiry be conducted on the papers. Any hearing dates, if required, to be determined by the committee. Possible reporting date: 11 February 2022 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to move, together, two amendments to the Selection of Bills Committee report. Leave granted. Senator RUSTON 243273 I move: (1) At the end of the motion, add "and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 not be referred to a committee". (2) At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, the provisions of the bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2022". Senator McKim JKM Mr President, for clarity, could you indicate if the question on these motions will be put separately? The PRESIDENT 30484 You have requested that the matters be addressed separately, and they will be addressed separately. 11:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The opposition doesn't have a problem with the amendment the government has moved on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, but we do have an issue in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. Our preference would be that this matter go before a joint select committee, but I am advised I cannot move an amendment to that effect in this part of the program. We do believe that on a bill like this, on an issue that has attracted interest from a number of different stakeholders, it would be good if the parliament dealt with this across both chambers, with people from both chambers being able to participate in that inquiry. That would be our preference. I'm reading the room that perhaps the government has the numbers for this, but a reporting date of 1 February really doesn't show any genuine interest at all in having a genuine inquiry into this report or the ability for stakeholders to participate in an inquiry like that. It's essentially saying, 'Yes, we will conduct an inquiry, but it will be held only over the Christmas holidays, after a year like this.' I think it shows a lack of seriousness from the government about dealing with this in a way that brings people together, which is our preference. We notice from the way the government has chosen to conduct the discussions around the preparation of this bill that they haven't reached across the chambers to other parties in this place. They haven't invited people to the table to assist with the drafting and we didn't have a copy of it until it was released publicly, and that was after three or four days of media speculation and briefing out to the media about what was in it and what wasn't in it. I think that from our point of view there's a lack of genuineness from the government about dealing with this in a way that's in the national interest as opposed to some political interests. The reporting date—seriously—also supports my view on that: 1 February really isn't long enough for a suitable inquiry into this matter. 11:20 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I'd like to say a few words on this matter, since I am the deputy chair of the committee and there has been no consultation with the committee—none! I'm not known as a person who does not commit fully to my job. I believe that my record throughout this last year of the pandemic has been equal to anyone's in terms of my attendance. This committee has a very heavy workload and we have, I believe, fulfilled it conscientiously and not sought to duck our responsibilities to this chamber. Now we're being told, without consultation, that irrespective of what we're doing at the moment we can do this bill over the Christmas break. It would seem that everyone else in this place, in this building, is entitled to spend some time with their families and is entitled to enjoy some respite from the hurly-burly of this place apart from the members of this committee, who haven't been spoken to. If anyone were to suggest that this was a simple matter, that this was legislation that can be dismissed with the papers, they would be sorely mistaken. Given that the government has taken the better part of three years, and many attempts, to get it into some sort of shape, I would have thought that they would at least have the courtesy of talking to the people who are now expected to actually undertake the parliamentary review of it on behalf of the chamber. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator KIM CARR AW5 No, I haven't started on that! In the last two days that the documents have been available there has been a flurry of information being provided concerned with this bill. That's because it's not just a question of the rights of the religious it's also a question of the secular community, and we're discovering that there are different points of view about that. And what would we expect if we're going to start to prioritise human rights—if we're going to say that some people have rights at the expense of others? Of course there's going to be a major dispute about that! Do those opposite think they can just sweep that under the carpet—just slide that away over the Christmas holidays and that no-one will notice? Well, think again! It is a gross abuse of this chamber and of the processes of this chamber to try to pull a swiftie like this. I expect nothing less, I suppose, in some sense, that a controversial matter like this has taken so long to resolve within the Liberal Party or the National Party. And yet they expect us all to sign up to it. That's not going to happen! There has to be a proper process to allow people in this community to have a view about things and express them properly. And we have to have time for members of this committee to be able to make an assessment of those views and report back to this chamber in a proper manner. They're saying 1 February: they're treating this parliament with contempt to suggest that that's going to be an adequate time to examine the complexity of this issue. In my own state, there are going to be views expressed about whether or not these matters are in fact legal. I have read numerous reports in the press today as to whether or not this matter should be subject to a High Court challenge. There are varying views within religious communities about these matters. But the government expect us to just tick and flick a matter of this importance over the Christmas holidays? That is the contempt at the heart of this—the contempt for everybody in this place. Those who think there's a quick, easy settlement here are buying themselves so much trouble that they don't begin to imagine and that couldn't begin to be fixed by a sleazy, slimy little arrangement like this. That's what it is. (Time expired) 11:25 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria This is outrageous. Here is a piece of legislation, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, that has been in the making for years and that we know, from having just seen it in the last day, is actually going to increase discrimination, not reduce discrimination. Yet the government is trying to quickly get it out of the way, to try to pretend that that's not the case. It is so disrespectful to the whole Australian community, who have an interest in this legislation, because it is complex legislation. On one hand the Prime Minister is saying it's going to bring us all together and it's going to protect people of faith, and on the other hand, when you read this legislation, you see that it is actually going to increase discrimination, allowing people to make offensive statements and get away with it. It is legislation that is a massive overreach—overriding all the state and territory antidiscrimination legislation. It's going to allow further discrimination in schools. Whereas the Prime Minister was promising that he was going to reduce discrimination in schools and not allow students to be expelled because of their sexuality or their gender identity, this legislation is actually going to consolidate that position. It is going to give schools more ability—it's going to encourage them—to use the provisions in this legislation to expel students and sack teachers on the basis of their gender identity or their sexuality. This in itself is bad enough, but we know that's this government's agenda. Okay, so that's the government's agenda, and they're putting it on the table. They believe in it; we don't, but they believe in it. But let's have the committee inquiry, which is what we do in this Senate, to be able to thrash this out, to be able to get all the views of the community, of the many stakeholders. And that's not just LGBTIQ stakeholders. It's also people with disability. It's women. It's people of minority faiths. All these people want to have a say, because they are affected by this legislation. This legislation allows people to make offensive statements against people with disabilities. It allows people in the street to come up to people and say, 'Your disability is a punishment from God.' This legislation will allow people to make offensive statements against women, to tell them they should be subject to the will of their husband. It allows people to make an offensive statement against single parents—to say that having children out of wedlock is simple. This legislation allows people to make offensive statements against same-sex couples—for a lesbian to have a colleague continually say to her, 'I'm going to pray to find you a husband.' This is the sort of thing this legislation does. So, at the very least, we need to have a decent inquiry to make this clear, to thrash this out. Yet we have a government that, a minute before we are due to consider this issue, has the gall to table an amendment saying that we're going to have an inquiry that is going to be completed by the end of January. How disrespectful to all those members of the Australian community who want to have a say! If we're going to have an inquiry that reports by the end of January, any hearings for this inquiry would have to be at the beginning of January, when people are on their summer holidays. It is outrageous; it is absolutely outrageous and just so disrespectful. But it is typical of this government, who have got it into their heads that this is the direction they want to go—to ride roughshod over the interests of the vast majority of Australians, who actually want to see legislation that decreases discrimination. People want to see a country where everybody is able to live their lives free of discrimination. They do not want to see legislation that is going to increase discrimination against women, against people with disabilities or against LGBTIQ Australians. So absolutely the Greens will be opposing this. We had hoped, through the selection of bills process last night, that we'd reached agreement to defer a decision on the committee and the reporting date until next week, to give us a bit more time to talk through these things sensibly. But, no, at the last minute, just before midnight, we had this disrespectful amendment from the government. I have moved an amendment to the selection of bills report to say that— (Time expired) 11:30 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia We should reflect on the comments of Senator Carr regarding the burden this reporting date will place on people who wish to submit to the committee. It will also burden the members of the committee themselves. We should not forget the secretariat as well, who will have to work all the way through what is traditionally a rest time for everyone in this place. I don't want to prejudge anything, but this is a bill that is like a can of worms. We're going to have to take the worms out, straighten them up and put them back in some order. It really will take a lot of effort because of the differing opinions that will be coming in through the submissions and that are already are in the minds of senators. It would make a lot of sense to defer this reporting date; at least until some time in March would be wise. I speak for myself and I'm pretty confident I have a feel of the crossbench on this. Senator Lambie may speak for herself, but I was also part of the organisation for the other crossbencher. If an inquiry isn't done properly, I certainly won't be voting for a bill. I can see that Senator Lambie is indicating that as well. You will roll the dice. Why not go to March and let everyone have a proper inquiry? 11:32 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Senator Rice has circulated an amendment to the motion currently before the chair. I'm going to move that amendment, but I want to seek leave to amend the date in that amendment. The PRESIDENT 30484 All you need to do is move an amendment to Senator Ruston's motion, amending the date. Senator McKIM JKM I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2022". There seems to be general agreement right across the Senate that these bills should have a Senate inquiry. I think everyone has that position. What we are discussing now and what we're asking the Senate to consider is a genuine inquiry. These are complicated pieces of legislation. They will have a significant impact, if they pass, on the lives of a large number of Australians, in particular people living with disabilities in Australia and our LGBTIQ+ community. ut it is not just those folk. A large section of the Australian community and Australian society will have their lives meaningfully impacted by these bills. We should not be making significant changes to the antidiscrimination framework that exists in this country without thoroughly exploring the issues raised by these bills—not a quick and dirty inquiry, as the government is suggesting, but a proper Senate inquiry where these complicated issues can get the airing that they deserve. We believe that a reporting date of 21 March would strike that balance. 11:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia This legislation has been subject to numerous rounds of public consultation. It is not legislation that hasn't been seen previously. The vast majority of this legislation has been well-versed with the different stakeholders. With the introduction of these bills the government did make clear that we also viewed the further consultative processes of a Senate inquiry to be a very important part of adding value to those consultation processes that have been undertaken. That is why we have sought, on the day of the introduction of this legislation to the parliament, to in good faith ensure it is referred for inquiry, consistent with that commitment to continue to undertake consultation. I've heard comments around the chamber in relation to the timing and duration of the inquiry. I understand that the Christmas period does involve, of course, the holiday season for many Australians, but I do note that there are 9½ weeks between now and 1 February. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Carr does protest a little too much. Others have made thoughtful contributions— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I will be, Senator Lambie. Fear not. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X But thanks for the gratuitous advice. There are 9½ weeks in this regard. Committees of course are able to make their own recommendations and determinations through that process, including in relation to additional time if the committee itself so determines. It is also the case that the government want to get the advice and the feedback from the Senate committee process in a manner that can enable consideration of this legislation by this parliament, so we have sought to act on the very day of its introduction to the parliament to provide for that referral in the conventional way. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Carr, you know full well that the vast majority of bills are referred without talking to the committee beforehand. You've been here so long that you know that well and truly to be the case. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X It's a fact, Senator Carr. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I can only imagine what Senator Carr would have called it had the government not supported the referral to a committee. We are supporting the referral to a committee. We are putting forward that referral in the conventional way of sending it to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It's the standard process for consideration of legislation. We're doing so and providing a 9½-week reporting period for that committee. Of course, as I indicated before, members of that committee, in terms of their consideration of all aspects of this, are at liberty to make their reports to the Senate not only obviously on the substance of the bills but also in relation to further time if they deem it to be necessary in working through such matters. But the government does wish the parliament to ideally hear the committee's views and the feedback from the committee prior to consideration of these bills to enable sufficient time for the bills to be considered by this parliament. The PRESIDENT 30484 Are there any further contributions on this matter? If not, I will start by putting the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the motion moved by Senator Ruston. Those who agree to that— 11:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Mr President, I move an amendment to Senator McKim's amendment: to insert the date 15 February. The PRESIDENT 30484 Alright. We will start with Senator Wong's amendment to Senator McKim's amendment to Senator Ruston's motion. To make it very clear, this is Senator Wong's amendment for a reporting date of 15 February. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Wong to the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:45]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

25 AYES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 25 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:53 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:53]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 23 AYES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Kitching, K. J. E. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 27 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:57 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the substantive motion as moved by Senator Ruston, on sheet GOV1, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:57]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 25 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:59 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now put the motion moved by Senator Ruston on sheet GOV2, to do with the autonomous sanctions amendment. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 30484 The time for the debate has expired but I will just confirm that senators still wish to move additional amendments. Senator Gallagher. 12:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, thank you. I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2022". The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:05]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 24 AYES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Keneally, K. K. Kitching, K. J. E. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 26 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:08 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Hanson, I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2022". The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:12]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

26 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Keneally, K. K. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:19 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:19]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

25 AYES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Keneally, K. K. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 26 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:21 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now put the substantive motion, as amended, as moved by Senator Smith—a while ago now! Question agreed to. COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee -1 Reference -1 12:22 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia by leave—I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2022: Missing and murdered First Nations women and children, with particular reference to: a) The number of First Nations women and children who are missing and murdered; b) The current and historical practices, including resources, to investigating the deaths and missing person reports of First Nations women and children in each jurisdiction compared to non-First Nations women and children; c) The institutional legislation, policies and practices implemented in response to all forms of violence experienced by First Nations women and children; d) The systemic causes of all forms of violence—including sexual violence—against First Nations women and children, including underlying social, economic, cultural, institutional and historical causes contributing to the ongoing violence and particular vulnerabilities of First Nations women and children; e) The policies, practices and support services that have been effective in reducing violence and increasing safety of First Nations women and children, including self-determined strategies and initiatives; f) The identification of concrete and effective actions that can be taken to remove systemic causes of violence and to increase the safety of First Nations women and children; g) The ways in which missing and murdered First Nations women and children and their families can be honoured and commemorated; and h) Any other related matters. Today I have moved a motion about the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This important motion is history-making, because on this day in this place we have the opportunity to refer to the committee an important issue for First Nation women and children who have been missing and murdered. This issue has continued for generations—generations of families and communities that have been affected. Just this morning we heard my colleague Senator Thorpe talk about the personal connections that we have to women who have been murdered in our families. In the media there has been lots of controversy— (Time expired) Question agreed to. BUSINESS -1 BUSINESS Withdrawal -1 12:23 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator McAllister, I move: That general business notice of motion no. 1283, standing in the name of Senator McAllister, be withdrawn from the Notice Paper. Question agreed to. Rearrangement -1 12:23 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That today: (a) government business orders of the day as shown on the Order of Business be considered from 12.15 pm; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 1281 be considered during general business. Question agreed to. BILLS -1 BILLS National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 -1

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading -1 12:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 introduces two changes from the list of changes that the scheme needs. Namely, it allows governments to take on the role of funder of last resort if an organisation to claim against does not exist or does not have the financial capacity to participate in the scheme, and it improves the naming-and-shaming rules for institutions that do not join scheme. These changes are yet another example of the government being dragged years too late to things that could have been done immediately to improve the lives of victims-survivors. Nevertheless, these changes do represent improvements to the scheme and will be supported by Labor. At the same time, these changes will not result in a scheme that sees Australia live up to its promise to survivors. The list of important and necessary reforms is much longer than what is addressed in this bill. From the second anniversary review of the scheme alone, the number of recommendations the government has failed to make is too long to get through in the time allocated today. Labor has spent years calling for the introduction of an early payment scheme to ensure that the elderly or unwell do not miss out on redress. The government finally came to the table a little earlier this year. It should not have taken years for the government to come around and do the right thing. It is particularly sad that this has taken so long because it doesn't even cost anything. It just brings forward part of people's payment. While adopting early payments was an improvement to the scheme, in practice it is still leaving too many people behind. Labor is hearing too many reports of elderly survivors not receiving their advance payment or of their payment being delayed. It's important that the government get the advance payment scheme working efficiently. Survivors have waited long enough, and some do not have much more time left. The scheme as it operates today is simply too slow to provide justice to survivors. Apart from the time taken to process applications and provide advance payments, the scheme too often takes too long to handle revocations—themselves a delay in process. Survivors deserve a scheme which focuses on their needs, their experiences and on speedy access to justice, not just on proceduralism and box ticking. The scheme as it stands also fails to provide the ongoing psychological support that survivors have been calling for. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse originally recommended this, and the changes in this bill do nothing to address these needs of survivors. In many cases, people are being provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological care. Many survivors will likely need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives. A redress scheme that took the needs of survivors as its first focus would provide lifetime psychological support and counselling. That is what Labor has been calling for because that is what survivors say they need. The government always claims that the changes needed to make the scheme everything it should be require agreements from the state. It's right. They do. But that is not a reason to stop trying. That is a reason, in fact, to take action and show leadership. The government needs to actually do the work with the states to see an increase in the payment, a fixed assessment matrix and an end to the indexation of prior payments, because that is what Australians expect and that is what survivors deserve. If the minister has found any state governments resisting doing the right thing, tell us who they are. Don't let them stand in the way of this country doing the right thing by survivors and doing it now. 12:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank Senator McAllister for her contribution on this important piece of legislation. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021, as has already been outlined, will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. The bill ensures survivors of institutional child sexual abuse who are unable to access the redress scheme due to the institution responsible for their abuse no longer existing or being unable to meet the necessary requirements to participate in the scheme can now, as a result of this, seek redress. This was a significant recommendation of the second year review, and on that basis I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading -1 12:29 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:30 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 -1

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading -1 12:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales If there is one thing that the government excel at, it is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Whether it's rolling out vaccines in a pandemic or addressing climate change, the government always seem to be a day late and a buck short. They're no different when it comes to offshore wind. But let's put aside that they're late to the party, and let's embrace the fact that they showed up at all. This legislation will finally allow offshore wind to begin in earnest in Australia. These bills establish a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area. The bills would allow the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. Just like solar, where Australia could become the Saudi Arabia of solar power, we could become the wind superpower as well. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world, and we are, after all, an island nation. There is so much potential, and the energy providers are already there. Once again, as with most things energy and climate related, the government is playing catch-up. There are more than 10 projects waiting for the government to bring on this legislation so they can get on with the job, and those projects have massive capability. Star of the South, off the south of Gippsland, when complete, will produce enough energy to cover 20 per cent of Victoria's current energy needs. One single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar, and these turbines can turn 15 times each minute. Some of the best wind resources are located just off the coast of the regions that have powered Australia and Australian industry for generations: Gippsland and Latrobe, Newcastle and the Hunter Valley, Illawarra, Gladstone and Central Queensland. These regions have the strong electricity grid infrastructure, the ports, the railways and, most importantly, the populations for new energy and new industry. These communities and their workers have the most to gain from a thriving offshore wind industry. So it's not just the energy created that benefits Australia but the jobs as well. The turbines need maintenance, and there's a network of ships and ports required for that maintenance. Green Energy Partners have two projects that they're looking to start exploratory work on, off the Illawarra and off Newcastle. They want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub. The government likes to talk up technology and not taxes, but here we see them late to the game again when it comes to offshore wind technology. Probably a decade ago, I had the very good fortune to go to the United States and do some work on energy transition. At that time there was a coalition of energy providers up and down the East Coast of the United States working to establish the regulatory arrangements for offshore wind. A decade later, we're finally getting around to it. Why are we so far behind when there is so much to be gained? There are some issues with the bill that we don't feel are adequately addressed. The Senate committee examining this bill, including the government senators who lead the committee, made some suggestions that it considered were important to the legislation. These include amending the objects clause to better incorporate electricity transmission and exports. Australia can be the battery of South-East Asia, especially after we harness the opportunity of offshore wind. We need to have in mind not just the domestic uses of this power but the opportunity to export to other nations. The committee also recommended amending the consultation requirements for declared areas, and we agree with the committee that the consultation requirements should include the Minister for the Environment, affected state and territory governments, energy planning authorities and developers. There should be greater transparency and time frames incorporated into the declaration process, and the committee supported further consideration being given to these matters. The Senate inquiry had two additional concerns that weren't reflected in the final report. In particular, Labor has concerns over the bill's work health and safety framework. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised and national workplace health and safety law in the bills. Instead, the committee heard that the government has amended those laws into an essentially unrecognisable state. If we don't have harmonisation of these workplace health and safety frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while operating on an offshore renewable project. That is confusing for everyone involved and it presents risks for workers and employees. To be fair, there is disagreement on these points, including between the department, the regulator and stakeholders representing both employers and workers in the industry. But, given the significant difference of opinion, Labor urges the government to urgently undertake further consultation on both the content of the workplace health and safety provisions and their coverage. If the government chooses not to do that and there is a change of government at the election—which I certainly hope there will be—Labor will undertake that work. Our national platform is clear: Labor will improve and harmonise the workplace regulatory frameworks covering workers in offshore clean energy. Australia has some years to get this right during the feasibility period and before construction begins. It's crucial that we do. Labor's second concern is that the bill does not require local benefits to be included in merit criteria for licences. When the minister of the day is considering whether to grant an offshore or electricity licence, he or she should be required to consider benefits to local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations peoples. The committee heard it was important for this requirement to be reflected broadly in legislation in order to allow and ensure that they are reflected in detail in the regulations. Labor would also welcome the government considering a legislative amendment to ensure benefits for the local communities in which these new industries will be situated. In summary, we welcome the bills. We called for them. The government promised them, then delayed them. While we don't seek to hold up the passage of these bills, they would benefit from further amendments. Business needs certainty and swiftness. Workers need proper workplace safety frameworks, and opportunities for local communities and workers need to be considered and included. 12:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. We need this bill to create an offshore wind industry to help us drive coal and gas out of our energy system. We need this bill in order to build the international transmission networks that we need to replace coal and gas exports with clean energy exports. It will only be abundant, dirt-cheap clean energy that will enable us to attract manufacturing back to Australia and transform our coal and gas reliant regions so that they remain economic powerhouses that export our sun and our wind to the rest of the world. Australia has around 2,000 gigawatts of offshore energy that we can harness. To put that in perspective, Australia's entire grid is around 55 gigawatts of capacity. So we're talking about 40 times Australia's current energy use blowing right now across our offshore waters. However, this bill does need improvement. We have circulated amendments that do three main things. Firstly, to ensure that our abundance of renewable resources are matched by an abundance of Australian jobs, we want a local content clause to ensure that wind companies that commit to securing Australian workers and Australian services get preference in securing offshore titles. Secondly, our amendments would make clear in the objectives of the act that the purpose of the bill is to encourage clean energy exports. Thirdly, we want to ensure the section on financial assurances required of clean energy projects doesn't come into place until a similar regime exists for oil and gas assets. The government said they are committed to doing this, but they're dragging their feet. Once this bill passes, offshore wind projects will have a higher burden of financial assurance than oil and gas projects, which, of course, are far more dangerous—such are the favours that oil and gas companies enjoy in Australia under this government. The Liberals love red tape when they can wrap it around things that they don't like, like clean energy that threatens the profits of their coal and gas donors. However, we understand we don't have majority support for those amendments and we do want to facilitate the quick passage of this legislation. I understand that Labor supports the intention of our amendments and we will continue to work closely with Labor in future parliaments to ensure that this bill is improved on, particularly in relation to the work health and safety provisions that the government refuses to improve. We don't want to jeopardise this bill's quick passage. There are projects that need this bill to pass so that work can progress over the summer, like the Star of the South which will replace Yallourn, Australia's oldest and dirtiest coal plant, in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. That project will replace 85 per cent of the supply that Yallourn currently produces. That's Australia's dirtiest and oldest plant, whose life was extended in a secret deal by the Victorian Labor government. This project proves that we don't need it and that the contract to prop up coal should never have been written. In conclusion, by harnessing the abundance of our offshore wind resources, we can drive the cost of energy down—potentially, close to zero—giving Australia a competitive edge to bring back manufacturing to our shores and to ensure that heavy industry can continue in a carbon-constrained global economy. The biggest winners from this bill and the clean energy transformation will be regions like Gladstone in my home state of Queensland, Gippsland and the Hunter and Illawarra—deepwater ports with heavy industry. These nearby rich offshore wind resources will provide those regions with the clean energy needed to create hydrogen for steel, ammonia for export and power heavy industry and manufacturing at dirt-cheap prices. This is an important step to drive out coal and gas and keep it in the ground. We support this bill's passage through the parliament. 12:40 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. This bill establishes a regulatory framework for offshore electricity infrastructure to, finally, allow the construction of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. This bill is so long overdue. It has been delayed by the chaos and the division of this government—chaos and division which has delayed this very vote, delayed a real climate action plan and delayed the good, secure jobs that this new industry will deliver. There are a dozen offshore wind proposals around the country at various stages of readiness, just waiting for this long overdue step from the government. These delays are completely unacceptable because this is a global race. There is a global race on to bring the opportunities of the global transition to green energy right here to Australia. It's a global race that we are at risk of losing because of this government and because of the division in this government, which is holding the jobs of the future to ransom. The first of these projects that is absolutely ready to seize this moment in time is in my home state of Victoria. It's the Star of the South project in Gippsland—a region that is crying out for the jobs of the future and crying out for this government to take swift action to deliver those jobs of the future. The Star of the South project will provide 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs and power 1.2 million homes. It will invest $8.7 billion into Victoria over the project's lifetime, with the significant majority of that investment being in Gippsland and in the Latrobe Valley. Most importantly, this project will create jobs in an industry that has a bright future ahead of it. Just yesterday, we saw the type of leadership and vision that this industry and these communities need, not from our Prime Minister but from the Andrews Labor government. On Tuesday, the Victorian government announced a $40 million funding boost for offshore wind projects in my home state in Victoria. It is the largest single offshore wind announcement in Australian history. Victorian coastlines are amongst the best in the world for these projects, and the Andrews Labor government is positioning Victoria to lead that global race. Meanwhile, the Morrison government hasn't even started running. The Morrison government had the chance to deliver jobs with the Ryan Corner windfarm project to power the Snowy Hydro project. Of course, this government missed that chance. Keppel Prince in Portland is the only manufacturer of wind turbines in Australia, and this manufacturer was primed and ready to provide the turbines to deliver the content for the Snowy Hydro project. But, instead of using local content, local manufacturers and local companies, that project will be using imported products and overseas companies because that is how the Morrison government does its business. This is a decision that has already cost 40 jobs in a small regional town that desperately needs those jobs. This kind of approach from the Morrison government has the potential to cost so many more jobs in this global race for the renewables jobs of the future. This was a chance for the Morrison government to deliver good jobs in green energy and, like so many opportunities, they squandered it. Instead, they lost those jobs. This is what we can expect from any Morrison government move to a renewable energy future: no commitment to local content and no commitment to local jobs—it's as simple as that. Workers know what they're going to get from this government—a glossy document, but no real plan to deliver the future job opportunities of this global race to Australians. Unlike this government, Labor have a plan. We have a plan to see Australia become a renewable superpower. A Labor government will invest $20 billion to rewire the grid. We will make electric vehicles cheaper. We will support 10,000 new apprenticeships in the energy trades of the future. We will have 400 community batteries powering 100,000 homes. We will invest $15 billion in a national reconstruction fund, creating exactly these types of jobs and cutting emissions in the process. And we will make sure that our regions are at the centre of this change. We will make sure that our regions are at the centre of this shift to becoming that renewables energy superpower. That is our plan, because we should be a country that makes things here and because we need to win the global race to bring the jobs of the future right here to Australia. 12:46 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bills to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading -1 12:47 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:47 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 -1

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021

Second Reading -1 12:48 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. This bill will build on the Morrison government's commitment to reform employment services, and is a critical component of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. It is one of the many bills that the Morrison government is progressing during this sitting period to advance the causes of regional Australians, especially Indigenous Australians. This is a bill that I am particularly glad and proud to stand up and speak on today because this is a reform I have been championing for over a decade, long before I came into this place nearly 2½ years ago. I commend the government for bringing on the introduction to this bill, and I am proud to be part of a government that puts in place such sensible reforms in this area. This bill enables remote communities to co-design their implementation of government services—a real voice to government, if you will. This bill will help reform remote employment services, and it will do it in a way that sees the ongoing rollout of these services adjusted by feedback from populations of remote communities. The reforms will also be piloted in partnership with remote communities, ensuring that support is available to aid in the rollout. This bottom-up design and implementation is what communities have been asking for for a long time, and it is what we are delivering. Those opposite love to pay lip-service when it comes to the idea of a true Indigenous voice. When it disagrees with their blinkered world view—when communities cry out for things like the cashless debit card, for example—they run a mile and return to their top-down Canberra-based decision-making model. They are more concerned about appeasing latte lefties than actually listening to communities. I will have more to say about the cashless debit card in a moment. Labor's lies in that area really need to be called out. I go back to the positive reform that is the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. This bill will provide the framework that allows new approaches to welfare and employment services provision to be piloted in remote communities ahead of wider implementation of the government's budget commitment to the Community Development Program, the CDP, which will be replaced in 2023. Lessons learnt from the pilot sites will inform the design of the new program to be rolled out in 2023. Initially we estimate around 200 eligible jobseekers across the pilot sites will volunteer for this payment. The collaboration supported in this bill will allow communities to develop programs that are appropriately flexible, enabling the building of skills and capabilities of the people in remote communities. Importantly, this bill will not see a return to the old training for training's sake model that has really been a blight across much of these sorts of programs. In fact, it will move our service delivery in the opposite direction. I've seen the hopelessness that can be overcome when people get a job. I've seen the hopelessness of people undergoing training for training's sake and it not leading anywhere. We know that many people have dozens of qualifications yet no job prospects. Equally, I've seen the positive life transformations that can occur when someone gets a job. Over the decades governments of different stripes have tried different approaches to employment services delivery in remote Australia. We're constantly learning what works and, importantly, what doesn't in urban, suburban, regional and remote environments. We know that one size does not fit all. Many of the more detailed aspects of this new approach will be set out in legislative instruments and policy guidance—for example, any additional qualification criteria for the supplement and the exact rate of payment—allowing this flexibility to adjust as lessons are learnt and as communities' ideas change over the course of the pilot. This is best practice. It's going to allow first-hand experience to guide the implementation of services. Australians living in remote communities face complex environment challenges different from those experienced in the city and even regional areas. Remote areas cover 75 per cent of the Australian landmass; however, there are fewer jobs available in remote areas—we know that—with less than two per cent of actively trading businesses located in these regions. The key reform this bill introduces is a new supplementary payment that will be made to eligible jobseekers in the Remote Engagement Program pilot communities so that they can engage in activities or placements like having a job. The placements will build participants' skills in roles that will deliver goods or services to benefit local communities and provide a pathway for jobseekers to find a job. This bill supports the government's commitment to work in genuine partnership, to co-design, with Indigenous Australians. The new payment will be paid at a fortnightly rate of between $100 and $190. It will be additional to certain primary income support payments and other supplements for eligible jobseekers. The new payment will not be subject to the income test laid down in the Social Security Act. It can be paid for a maximum of two years, at which time the government will have finalised the replacement to the more wide-ranging CDP. Why would anyone want to stand in the way of this? No-one would unless of course they were just politically motivated to do so. But we know that this is just how the Labor Party likes to operate. The reality is that communities want to be able to engage in the design of their own program. I listened carefully to Senator McAllister's speech earlier, where she talked about Labor's position. This is a program that allows an opportunity for communities to design the program themselves, for them to have input into it. There was criticism that there's not enough detail in the bill, but it would be quite disingenuous of the government to put detail in before they've actually engaged in the co-design process. The whole idea of this bill is to enable that to start so that there can then be engagement with the community to design and then implement it, based on that feedback and the community's design. That's why there's provision within this bill to do it by instrument, to have provisions that will be dealt with at a later stage, once that design process has been worked out, so it then can be implemented. But we know that Labor are often politically motivated—and it's shameless—as with the cashless debit card. I want to call out the Labor Party for their shameless and baseless scare campaign. You would all be aware of it—the lie that the government is somehow going to force pensioners onto the cashless debit card. This scare campaign is ironic, because the government proposed an amendment to ensure that pensioners would stay off the cashless debit card, and Labor voted against that motion. That's the record in this place. Why did Labor do that? Were they afraid that their scare campaign wouldn't work if they voted to prevent pensioners from going onto the cashless debit card? This deserves to be called out. Yet, on the other hand, Labor have committed to scrapping the card. I've worked for over 10 years dealing with this, in close consultation with communities and community organisations, to see this card implemented. This card has seen a reduction in crime, a reduction in domestic violence and a reduction in ambulance call-outs. It is a card that takes cash out of the hands of drug dealers. And Labor wants to scrap this card. They cite rights, as if government welfare in cash form is some form of right. We, on this side of the House, care more about the rights of children to be fed and of women to be safe from domestic violence. Labor's capitulation to the left-wing base on this issue is shameful. It will see outcomes worsen in our regions, undoing years of good work. Shame on them! In summing up, I return to what this bill is about. It enables remote communities to co-design the implementation of government services—a real voice to government, if you will. As I said, I listened carefully to Senator McAllister. I'm not going to stand here and say that the CDP program is perfect or that it's a flawless program. In fact, in my first speech in this Senate I spoke about the fact that there need to be significant reforms across the whole employment services area. And I've committed myself, while I am in this place, to be part of the discussion, part of the design and part of the movement to see the changes that are required. But we don't get this from the Labor Party. I sat through the inquiry—and Senator Chandler is here as well; she's the chair of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which had a good look at this program—and we heard from communities on the ground and from individuals who will be dealing with this program. There's quite some enthusiasm about the opportunity to be part of the design of this program. Yet Labor just takes the political point score, rather than actually dealing with the opportunities that are here. Now, I welcome support for this bill, but, in doing so, they just want to make a cheap shot. This bill will help reform remote employment services. This is a good thing. It needs to happen. There does need to be reform, and the government's committed to that. But you've got to be able to design it and prove it up first, before you really move forward. This bill enables us to do that. It enables us to put in place, in consultation and co-design with the community, the things that they recognise would work for them. We know that when you run a program from a Canberra-driven, top-down model you end up running a program to the community, and that never works. You've got to run the program with the community. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 I take the interjections—this provides the opportunity for the community to be part of the design for a program that works for them. It is the height of paternalism to suggest, by way of this sort of disruption, that communities won't know what's good for them. They're part of the design of this program, and that's a good thing because it's going to get us better results. We've got to see better results in these communities. The reforms will be piloted in partnership with remote communities, ensuring that support is available to aid in the rollout. This bottom-up design and implementation is what communities have been asking for for a long time. I've spent a lot of time in communities. This year has been a little disrupted—every time I go home after coming over here I have to go into quarantine, and that has limited the amount of time I get to go around the communities. But, just before the last sitting, I had a couple of days where I got out into Leonora and Laverton. I engaged with the service providers out there and engaged with the community. I literally sat on the red dirt out there with a bunch of young fellows that were engaging with an employment program. There is a real desire to see reform in this space. The reform that is enabled through this bill is welcomed by the communities because it's going to make a real difference. This bottom-up design and implementation is what communities have been asking for for a long time. This is enabling us to do four or five pilot sites, and that's a good thing. I'm looking forward to the day when we can roll it out to even more communities. That's going to be even better. But you've got to get it right. The opportunity that this pilot provides is to trial different things and get feedback; it's a chance to, at times, make a mistake but then learn from it and work out how we can improve the design. Then we can take it out to the entire country to deal with the 50-plus CDP regions across the country and ensure that there is a program that actually meets the needs of the communities and, importantly, gets people off welfare and into a job. Anyone that says to you that there are not the economies in these locations is actually misleading, or they're misunderstanding the opportunity that exists. Where there is population, where there is a community, where there are people, there is an economy and there is an opportunity. We've got to stop this business of having lowered expectations for these communities. It's the racism of lowered expectations which is going to hold back this nation, particularly these communities. We've got to expect, like they do, that things can be better and that, when they're in the driving seat, they can make the difference. 13:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory [by video link] I can't remember ever being in a position to congratulate this government, but congratulations to you for finally realising that the Community Development Program is an utter failure. Despite the expenditure of millions of dollars, the CDP has failed to deliver employment, economic development or a sustainable future to remote communities. It has taken this government six long years to realise that the CDP just isn't working—six long years of participants in remote areas pointing out to this government the fatal flaws in this program, a program that has not led to jobs, opportunity or community development. What it has led to is entrenched poverty, hopelessness, hunger and despair. It has actually caused damage to remote communities and participants, cutting people off from income support, putting additional strains and stresses on families and eroding self-respect and dignity by taking a draconian, punitive approach. The CDP is discriminatory and it is broken. First Nations communities, individuals and organisations, along with Labor, have been saying this for six years, and it's not just us who have been continually drawing attention to the failures of CDP. This government has always known there are fundamental problems with its remote community employment model, But, instead of listening to the people on the ground and the experts, it has just fiddled around with the program for six long years, fixing nothing and further entrenching poverty in remote communities. I've been asking questions about CDP since I was first elected to this place in 2016. It was one of the first major issues raised with me by Territorians and is still one of the major issues people talk to me about as I travel across the Territory. And, in spite of all the efforts and tweaking and fiddling, the complaints and the issues are still the same: CDP is punitive and pointless and it keeps people poor. The CDP has been a discriminatory program since its inception. The majority of participants in the scheme—more than 80 per cent—are First Nations people in remote communities. The requirements and obligations imposed on CDP participants are more onerous than those that apply to jobseekers and income support recipients outside the CDP regions. And, because the requirements were more onerous, CDP recipients were in breach of their obligations and suspended from payments for longer and more often than non-CDP participants. The federal government's own review of its remote Work for the Dole program in 2019 found that the First Nations CDP participants were three times more likely to be penalised for non-attendance and were penalised more often. They went without income for longer periods and were less likely to be exempted on medical grounds, despite a much higher burden of disease and illness in remote First Nations communities. Poor mental health or physical health, disabilities and other personal problems also meant people were more likely to be penalised. The most penalised cohort were men under 35. These are men with families—with dependants—who were cut off from income support with no other means of getting money to support themselves and their families, and many people, particularly young people, were completely disengaged from the income support system. Once breached, many did not re-engage with the social security system. Many young people did not engage from the get-go, discouraged by the onerous obligations and sometimes meaningless activities. The 2019 government review reported that social problems had increased since the introduction of the CDP, including an increase in break and enters by children and young people, predominantly to steal food; an increase in domestic and family violence; an increase in financial coercion and family fighting; and an increase in mental health problems and feelings of shame, depression, sleep deprivation and hunger. Feelings of frustration and stress were reported when trying to deal with Centrelink from remote communities with limited online and telephone access and few opportunities to engage face to face. The report—your report—said the CDP had the opposite of its intended effect to get people off welfare or 'sit-down money'. In fact, it said quite clearly that the research found no evidence to suggest that penalties were an effective way to generate engagement in the program. The research found that for some jobseekers, penalising them had the opposite effect—it was demotivating and disempowering for participants and so they did not engage. There was no evidence that the CDP had an effect on the number of participants obtaining a job. Remember, all of this was laid out clearly in this government's own evaluation in 2019. I bring this back to the Senate to remind the government of all the moments you have missed to get this sorted. You had the evidence of CDP's failures well before this. In 2017 the National Audit Office said the CDP cost almost twice as much as the previous Work for the Dole scheme. It cost $10,494 per person to deliver CDP at the time, while the previous Remote Jobs and Communities Program cost $5,071 per jobseeker. We knew from a report by the ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research in 2018 that there had been a 740 per cent increase in financial penalties since the CDP replaced the previous Remote Jobs and Communities Program in 2015 and that remote workers were 25 times more likely to be penalised than non-remote jobseekers and 50 times more likely to have a serious penalty imposed, which meant up to eight weeks with no payment. This government was even under attack from its own over the CDP, with former Indigenous affairs minister Fred Chaney calling it a 'national disgrace': Chaney said there was a "total carelessness shown for the hardship inflicted on remote Aboriginal people and the damage being done by this denial of the facts. "In my view, this policy is a national disgrace. It is a reversion to the attitudes of the past. "It's another assimilationist, bureaucratic, irrelevant approach that will inflict more hardship, hunger and dysfunction on Aboriginal people. "It’s not community building, it’s the reverse. The more I see of it, the more I think we are reverting to the habits of the 1940s and 1950s." So, Mr Chaney was very clear in his criticisms of the CDP, which were published in October 2018. Did the government take action and dump the fundamentally flawed CDP? Did they go back to the drawing board? Did they actually work with First Nations people and communities to design a scheme that might actually work? Of course not. What they did was again fiddle around the edges, continue to allow people in offices in Canberra to design and implement a program for and about remote First Nations communities. In 2018 the government introduced minor changes in a new compliance framework, despite every submitter to the Senate inquiry being opposed to the bill. The flawed CDP continued in remote communities. In fact, the current Minister for Indigenous Australians was quite glowing about the CDP in October 2019, describing it as delivering better results on all fronts. He was also very positive about the 1,000-jobs package brought in as part of the March 2019 CDP reforms—the fiddling-around-the-edges bit. This was the program that was supposed to support the creation of 1,000 new jobs for CDP participants in remote Australia. As of May this year—more than two years after that multimillion-dollar program was started—it has created not 1,000 jobs but only 400 jobs. But the government is adamant that the 1,000-jobs program, which is really 400 jobs, will continue—again, just not learning from what is really wrong about this program. It's as though they don't want to listen to First Nations people who are telling them about what works and what doesn't in remote communities. And what they've been telling them from the very beginning is that this CDP is flawed to its foundations, and no amount of tempering around the edges can change that. A new First Nations led role centred on creating fair and decent jobs and treating people with respect is greatly needed. I was so proud in 2019 when Labor committed to scrapping the CDP and replacing it with a program that would co-design a program that creates real jobs, meets community needs and delivers meaningful training and economic development. I'm extremely proud that this is a policy that we will again take to the election. This bill does not do that. It falls short in every single respect. It does not create a new employment program. What the government is doing is creating another welfare model that will pay very few participants extra income support money that will still be subject to quarantining to participate in 'job-like placements'. The focus of these placements will be on skills and vocational training only, not traineeships or apprenticeships. With no apparent pathway to employment, it's unclear how the pilot would generate jobs for a community unless that community already has economic activity and job creation capacity. This will not address the existing challenge of on-country job creation for those young people who are leaving education, and it will further entrench the status quo of the existing CDP, of paying individuals to participate in Work for the Dole activities. This policy approach reflects the government's continued failure to recognise that many people on the current CDP are already trained, have worked and will work, if work is available. This bill sets up a two-tier system across remote communities, as those outside the employment pilot sites do not benefit at all. The detail of what happens outside the pilot sites is scant. There is no advice or detail on a time frame for the rollout of the replacement payment posts for 24 June. While the government has again squandered an opportunity to establish a real jobs program for remote Australia, the new payment offers a financial benefit, taking at least 5,200 for some participants. These participants are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the country. This government are not creating jobs in remote communities. They aren't looking at all the evidence and lessons they can learn from their past mistakes. In fact, the minister, to this day, has never owned up to the CDP being an absolute failure. He has never said, when introducing this new program, why he is dumping the CDP, what the problems have been or what lessons he has learned from sticking to a punitive scheme they knew was causing harm in remote communities. The issues with this bill and the failed CDP were put very succinctly to the Senate inquiry into this bill by Dr Josie Douglas from the Central Land Council. Dr Douglas said: Aboriginal people are tired of the endless cycle of poverty, punitive welfare and policy changes that just come out of the blue. In the 21st century it's simply not good enough to have the bureaucracy design yet another version of a failed program. People, young people in particular, need to be able to experience having a job and getting the skills and experience that that offers; otherwise, we are condemning future generations to a pathway of misery, a pathway of nothingness. My greatest fear is that this government continues down this pathway of misery to nothingness. Generations of young men and women in remote communities are not getting the opportunity to experience the dignity of work and proper wages. This legislation doesn't put in place a program that will create jobs and give control to First Nations people and communities. The Morrison government had an opportunity here to make a difference in remote communities, to work with stakeholders who have been putting forward ideas and alternatives to the CDP for years, to put in place a program that will create jobs in remote communities—and that will provide people with skills and will lead to hope and opportunity—and to codesign a program that includes this legislation but that is not imposed, where First Nations people and organisations have a seat at the table. But this bill does not do that. It proves that, once again, only Labor will scrap the CDP and work in genuine partnership with First Nations organisations and communities to create a remote area program that does create job opportunities, offers community development, and provides a pathway out of the nothingness and misery that eight long years of this government have imposed on remote Australian communities. 13:18 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia [by video link] This legislation is just another version of the flawed and much-criticised Community Development Program, or CDP. While Labor supports this bill because it involves a supplementary payment that offers a financial benefit for a small number of remote jobseekers, it is still very much part of a broken system that does not support job creation or support quality of life in Australia's remote Indigenous communities. In Labor, we believe that Aboriginal people need to be afforded the right to self-determination, and this cannot be achieved through the CDP, which is still very much running for around 40,000 Australians. The original CDP is a farce of forced labour for those who need support, as opposed to the disrespect they are being shown by this government. Back in 2015, when the government brought in these new programs, it was justifiably then criticised by Indigenous stakeholders as broken and discriminatory, and that view has been upheld in the time that communities have had to live with it. Why should people in the most-remote places of Australia have to work without the same proper wages and conditions as other Australians? One of the CDP's most egregious failings is its removal of choice. People are forced to work in ways that take away a person's sense of self-determination and agency, and this does nothing to support someone getting into secure work. The discriminatory nature of this kind of work-for-the-dole system has meant breaches and extreme rates of penalties have been applied, causing great levels of disadvantage. These penalties are extreme, particularly given the cost of living in these communities. Under these schemes, people are being paid as little as $286 a week, and that can mean a decision about affording fuel or food for that week. The penalties imposed in this system are much higher than those imposed by urban Australia's jobactive program, and people are 55 times more likely to receive a serious penalty. This is incredible when you look at the inability of people in remote communities to walk into a Services Australia office to plead their case and get these kinds of issues resolved. There have been substantial negative impacts on remote communities. The program has placed downward pressure on legitimate job creation by creating a pool of thousands of people who have to work without proper pay and conditions. Much of the work they do is similar to that which is properly paid by local government and by not-for-profit organisations. But the work that's done in these communities is not being credited as meaning as such, so people's future job prospects are being undermined. With these kinds of programs we run a very real risk—one we've seen happen—of damaging already flourishing Indigenous jobs, and over the last decade the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in employment and other outcomes has grown. I'm sad to say that government policies such as the CDP have contributed to this gap and to our failure to close the gap in all of the important Close the Gap indicators. This in turn exacerbates social harm and distress. The government's problem is its attitude to social services in remote Australia. The government thinks that something has to be made so unpleasant and so dehumanising for people that they won't get the help they need and will therefore seek to avoid the system entirely, which is what happens in many remote communities where people just opt out of getting income support, which drags down the whole community's standard of living. We know millions of dollars have been ripped from Services Australia over the years. Has that stopped poverty? No. Has it made it possible for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Certainly not. It has meant that people across Australia have been kept in a state of distress and poverty by a government that cares more for saving money than supporting Australia's most vulnerable people. Look at the statistics around things like the Indue card, which has cost $5,000 per person on the card. Why not direct that money directly into service improvement in remote communities or into proper wages? There are some 40,000 participants on the current CDP, over 80 per cent of whom are Indigenous. Most of these people will be staying on this current CDP until at least 2024, when the pilot version of the new remote engagement program is reassessed. This is simply not good enough. We already know that this scheme is broken and that it's not working. It means that thousands of people are staying on a scheme that a Senate inquiry found, as far back as 2017, had failed to deliver on its stated intention to address the lack of employment opportunities in remote Australia. That committee found, as far back as then, that it needed to be abolished and redesigned. So here we are, four years later, with a government that hasn't even begun to listen. It's an entirely useless approach to have wasted all these years when, frankly, any good sense analysis showed that the program was not going to succeed. Aboriginal organisations have been criticising these programs and also giving constructive proposals, which the government has failed to listen to. This stubbornness has meant that the government is now only bringing forward this trial in 2021. We know that there will be 200 jobseekers in the beginning stages of the program. This will mean that people on JobSeeker could earn extra money on top of their JobSeeker payments of between $100 and $190 a fortnight. That's a good thing, and therefore a reason not to oppose it. But I will be watching very carefully the penalties and the way this program is being delivered. I don't want to see this government make an already bad situation worse, and that has been its very clear record. Participants in the new scheme will need to work at least 15 hours to receive their payment, meaning that, including the regular JobSeeker payment in their income, it would be equivalent to the minimum wage. Despite the imitation of actual employment, though, participants remain participants; they're not deemed to be employees for the purposes of workers compensation or superannuation. Again, this is simply terrible. It's not good enough and there's no reason that these workers, working for a minimum wage or in a job-like situation, should not have the same workers compensation and superannuation as other people. It focuses on being job-ready and job-like, with placements expected to build skills and to provide vocational training, the caveat being that traineeships or apprenticeships will not be available. Again, this is simply not good enough. How can the government say its program is there to get people job-ready and will be job-like, building skills, without actually delivering the training programs that are going to enable people to step through? How can this government claim to focus on anything approaching getting people job-ready when it's not offering a pathway to training? We have already seen places plummet from over half a million in 2011, when there was a Labor government. After many glossy announcements and grand gestures this year, these places in apprenticeships are now a mere 330,000. That's one in five apprenticeships and traineeships that have disappeared under this government. And we know that it's worse in these regional and remote communities. Fewer apprenticeships and traineeships mean fewer job opportunities for Australians and now fewer skilled workers for Australia's future. Businesses, especially in regional Australia, are crying out for skilled and qualified staff, but this government doesn't know how to support the development of these skills. We know how expensive it is to get a plumber, an electrician or people with building trades out to a remote community. Why isn't the government investing in the skills of these communities? It might make complete sense to this government that it's refusing to spend appropriately on skills. Maybe it wants to create a generation of young people who have not had the opportunities that they should. There's simply no logic to the parameters in the legislation that's being put forward. It makes complete sense for this government to blame those young people who are out in remote communities—without industry, without business and without the opportunity for training—themselves for their outcomes. Remote Australians are being hung out to dry, skills-wise and training-wise, by yet another new system coming in that does not invest in the skills and training that it purports to want to fix. All it does is offer another stick and another of set of criticisms. There's no job creation or economic development with any truth. We have a government that's displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of on-country job creation for young people leaving education. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 It being 1:30 pm, we will move on to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS -1 STATEMENTS Hub Gymnastics -1 13:30 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I bring to the attention of honourable senators the incredibly successful sporting club Hub Gymnastics, which is located in Adelaide's southern suburbs. Hub Gymnastics was established in 1985 by a group of volunteers, and has since grown to train over 700 athletes, with a waiting list of over 300 who are desperate to join. Gymnasts of all ages are welcome to the club, and they enjoy great training from head coach, Emma Murray, and her team. I pay tribute to Emma for her incredible dedication to leading the coaching of all the gymnasts, as well as for her amazing drive in growing and advocating for the club, alongside its president, Marie Moran. Last week, I visited their gym, which is named after Emma's father, Paul. Paul was instrumental in building the club. Sadly, Paul is no longer with us, but he has left the community a great legacy. The club is a living testament to his incredible efforts to promote gymnastics. On the weekend, Hub Gymnastics held their annual recreation day. The gym was abuzz with activity, particularly with gymnastic displays for proud parents and family members. I'd like to think that there was an Olympian amongst those participating on the mats. I also had the chance to hear more from the club about their need for expanding their facilities, especially to accommodate the 300 keen gymnasts waiting to train at the club. An upgraded and expanded facility for Hub Gymnastics has become a necessity, and I intend to continue working diligently with my state colleagues and the local council to ensure Hub Gymnastics' vision for the future comes to life. I thank the president, Marie Moran, and head coach, Emma Murray, for their kind welcome and hospitality. International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women -1 13:32 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Every day should be eliminating violence against women. Our women have the right to live their lives in safety, with full human dignity and free from all forms of violence, including family violence. The social, cultural, spiritual, physical and economic impact that family violence has on our communities is devastating. The greatest and most direct impact on family violence is on our women—First Nations women—trans women and our sister girls. At the heart of family violence lies both individual and communal grief, loss, disempowerment and trauma caused by colonisation and dispossession. The only central way to end violence against women is through a community-driven, self-determined approach that prioritises cultural healing and restores the inherent strength, dignity and self-determination of our families and our communities. Healing that is based on the strength and resilience of our people and cultures, and driven by our self-determined organisations, is the only thing that's going to work for our people, our communities, our women and our children. Self-determination is about our own destiny, and deciding our own destiny. Workplace Relations -1 13:34 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak in support of maritime workers and the Maritime Union of Australia. They've both been negotiating in good faith for a new enterprise agreement for almost two years. Maritime workers have been heroes in the pandemic. They've kept essential supplies going in and out of Australia, at a risk to their own wellbeing from coming into direct contact with vessels arriving from high-risk countries and in some cases, like at Qube's Fremantle port, without even being provided with PPE. They haven't had a pay rise in two years, while companies like Patrick have been making a fortune off their backs. In the last four years, Patrick's fees to customers have increased by 363 per cent in New South Wales and a whopping 1,031 per cent in Western Australia and there have been massive increases across the rest of the country. That money isn't flowing through to workers. That money went to a $68.5 million dividend and a $3 million pay rise for Patrick CEO, Michael Jovicic. Whenever maritime workers attempt to bargain in good faith for their fair share this government calls them thugs. I'll tell you what thuggery looks like. It's giving yourself a $3 million pay rise and paying a $68.5 million dividend while your essential workers have had a two-year wage freeze. This government has overseen the worst eight years in Australia's history for wages growth. Australian Greens -1 13:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [by video link] I want to refer to speeches that you, Acting Deputy President Faruqi, and Senator Thorpe gave yesterday. In your speech, Senator Faruqi, you mentioned the term 'far-Right extremist' or 'extremist' every third or fourth line—that enshrines separation. That was five times in just 18 lines. Senator Thorpe used the term 'white privilege' 11 times on average, every fourth line—driving hate and conflict. In private talk with Senator Thorpe—not meant to be kept private, but personal talk—she recognises that the Aboriginal industry is doing enormous damage, but she doesn't say that in public. What we've got is gutless, woke bureaucrats shovelling money continually to keep the gap open so that the people in the Aboriginal industry, both black and white, can make money off it. Care requires data and facts, not emotive slogans and labels. Care requires understanding. Senator Thorpe talks about climate and Aboriginals, the UN and Aboriginals, and property rights and Aboriginals. They are not the same. These very things are hurting the Aboriginals but not as much as the resort to labels. Keeping people locked in victimhood makes them dependent so that the Greens can control them. I have never heard anyone condemn you for your race, your gender or your background, only for your incitement to division and hatred. You have the privilege of being in the Senate and representing Australians, but your rhetoric divides on the basis of race. Yet every Australian recognises we all have red blood, regardless of our skin colour. We all have a human spirit that we share with every human, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of background and regardless of prejudices. It's about time that people in this parliament, especially the Greens, start to recognise that we should be united. We are one people. (Time expired) COVID-19: Victorian Government -1 13:39 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to raise serious ongoing concerns about Victorian Labor's proposed pandemic management bill. Even after Labor backtracked on some of the worst parts of the bill, Labor's proposed lockdown laws are antidemocratic and extremely dangerous. The bill, if passed, would allow unchecked power to be granted to the Premier and the health minister. A pandemic can be declared even when no pandemic exists—though it must be now declared on reasonable grounds. It allows the Premier to rule by decree, imposing almost any restriction without appropriate oversight by the parliament or the courts. Fines for a breach of a health order are outrageous—some $45,000. One of the worst aspects of this bill is that Victorians can be detained indefinitely without charge, with no right of appeal to a court. The power to review the detention of a person will be moved from the Ombudsman to the government-controlled Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. This is a farce. It defies the rule of law and represents a fundamental breach of human rights. So, in effect, the Premier throws someone into jail and decides through a committee he controls when they can be released. As a senator for Victoria I say that this is abhorrent. Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass said: There is a role for parliamentary committees, certainly a role for the scrutiny committee, but it's not enough in my view and I think concerns have been rightly expressed right around the legal community in relation to the need for a greater level of independent oversight. As Victorian Liberal opposition leader Matthew Guy has made clear, a coalition government will rip up Labor's new lockdown laws and kill the bill. Pet Food Industry -1 13:40 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia For close to four years now I've been raising the issue of unsafe pet food, the pets who have died, the manufacturers who were responsible and the governments who have failed to act. There have been four years of delay, four years of inaction, four years without anyone taking any form of responsibility. I have been told time and time again that state and federal ministers intend to meet to discuss reforms. Most recently they were due to discuss it at the start of November. It seems that those intentions don't mean much. In fact, they don't really mean anything. Again and again I find out that these meetings never happened or the issues don't get discussed or given the priority they deserve. The same thing happened earlier this month. They now want a cost-benefit analysis of reforms that I understand are only the lightest of regulatory and non-regulatory steps they can possibly take. We have already waited four years since dogs started dying of megaesophagus and three years since the Senate inquiry that I instigated handed down its report—three years. That report recommended mandatory standards in labelling and improved recall and, particularly, public reporting systems. These slow-acting agricultural ministers don't seem to understand how important this issue is to pet owners, to our constituents. After three years we don't want light-touch and indecisive action; we want results. We want to know that what happened to those 100 dogs in 2017 and 2018 won't happen again. The federal government and their state and territory counterparts should be acting with urgency, but, like an errant new puppy, they are chewing up paperwork and have dropped the ball. Morrison Government -1 13:42 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria How can the people of Australia trust the Morrison government to deliver for them? This is a government that is absolutely divided. This is a government that is in disarray. This is a government that is distrusted by the people of Australia. This government is divided right at the time that Australians need their government to get them over the line and through this pandemic, to lead them to the brighter future that we all need right now. Instead, this week in the parliament we have had government members crossing the floor to vote with One Nation and government members threatening to withhold their votes—if only they could figure out exactly how to do that. We have had complete shambolic disarray in the parliament this week. On top of all of that this is a government that is distrusted. This government is led by a Prime Minister who has been caught out again and again being loose with the truth. The Prime Minister in this very parliament has been exposed as believing that the truth is optional. We have a Prime Minister who this week has had to front up to the parliament and retract his lies. We have a Prime Minister who says one thing one day and then the complete opposite the next. Then he says that he can't remember what he said. The people of Australia do not trust this Prime Minister—they do not. They do not trust a prime minister who can't make up his mind whether he condemns the violent protesters or whether he actually understands their frustrations. But one thing is for sure. The Australian people, rightly, expect better now. They expect better than a government that is divided. They expect better than this disarray. They want a government that they can trust. Tasmania: Community Services -1 13:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Have you ever worried about where your next meal was coming from? Have you wondered whether you can afford bread and vegemite so your kids can eat for the next week? I can tell you that I have, and it sucks. One in six Australians have been living that reality this year. Many of them found they couldn't put food on the table for the first time in their lives. They're relying on the goodwill of their community to get food in their kids' bellies before they head to school in the morning and come home at night. The Green Bean Cafe in Launceston is pitching in to help. Paul and Tracey open their cafe once a week at dinnertime for anyone who needs a meal. They pay for the meals out of their own pocket because they've seen people struggling and they want to give back. They don't want any thanks or to be given anything for their efforts. They just want people to pass on their kindness and they want people to know they are open to feed those who need it. It's not just about a hot meal—although, I have to say, the meal is pretty good. It's a place for people from all walks of life to have a chat and have a safe place to be. These community co-ops and services are filling an important gap in their community that bigger foodbanks and charities cannot reach. We can't let our fellow Australians fall through the cracks. Good people like Tracey and Paul are willing to help make sure that that doesn't happen, but we just need to give them all the support we can. I have noticed, in going very quickly around Tasmania, that there are different cafes and so on doing this sort of thing. It would be really nice for the state government to find a building in these city areas that people and charities can use on different days. All they need is a kitchen and a fridge and somewhere for people to sit down and have their meal and some time to talk. One building is all they're asking for, and there's no reason Tasmania can't provide this. You can have CWA going in one day to feed people; you can have a business owner going in the next day. There are plenty of people out there who are prepared to do this. They really just need a facility. So, if the Tasmanian state government could think about that, that would be fabulous. Bruce Rock Remembrance Park -1 13:47 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia It's our constant duty as Australians to remember and honour our Anzac heroes who fought for, and secured, the freedoms and way of life we enjoy today in Australia. Physical monuments remain one of the best ways for us to ensure that their brave sacrifice is not forgotten by communities across our country. In the spirit of this, today I'd like to recognise in this place the newly opened remembrance park in the Shire of Bruce Rock in the Wheatbelt region of my home state of Western Australia. The park was officially unveiled on 6 November, and I was very sorry and very disappointed that other commitments meant that I couldn't attend that ceremony in person. But I was delighted that my good friend, shire president Stephen Strange, supported by the local community, was able to come out in support of this wonderful initiative. This beautiful tribute to our Anzac past was made possible by the Morrison government with funding through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program and the Saluting their Service program. The project is part of the Shire of Bruce Rock's main street revitalisation strategy, upgrading the existing remembrance sculpture into a park, complete with artwork, interpretive signage and landscaping. For many, many years, the community of Bruce Rock has welcomed into their town many, many Vietnam and Afghanistan war veterans. As the son of a Vietnam War veteran, I'm delighted and excited by the hospitality that this community continually provides to ex-service men and women. Fittingly, the new memorial features a plaque adorned with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: 'There was never a good war or a bad peace.' I look forward to my next visit to Bruce Rock and the communities across WA's Wheatbelt districts and seeing the memorial for myself. Again, I congratulate the town and the community of Bruce Rock for their wonderful warmth. Australian Public Service -1 13:49 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia In debate this week about the government's delayed response to national cabinet questions, I criticised Assistant Secretary Angie McKenzie of PM&C for refusing to accept the ruling of a Federal Court justice that national cabinet is not a committee of cabinet. I said Ms McKenzie was incompetent and politically partisan, and I stand by those remarks. Today I make the point that McKenzie is not alone. Under Secretary Philip Gaetjens, PM&C has become hugely politicised. PM&C was once headed by Public Service giants—like Sir John Bunting, Sir Geoffrey Yeend, Mike Codd, Michael Keating and, more recently, Peter Shergold, Terry Moran and Ian Watt. Things have changed. Secretary Gaetjens happily presides over a politically corrupted agency for a prime minister obsessed with secrecy and lacking respect for democratic accountability. The institutional decline and politicisation of the top ranks is demonstrated by other senior officers—notably, First Assistant Secretary Leonie McGregor, Lee Steel and John Reid—who gave evasive and highly unsatisfactory evidence to the Senate inquiry into the COAG bill. Whether through political expediency or cowardice, these public servants have betrayed the standards of which PM&C was once an exemplar. If there's a change of government, Mr Albanese would be well advised to sack Gaetjens on the spot. There's a huge task ahead to restore integrity at the peak of the Public Service. I have no hesitation in calling out incompetence and political partisanship. There must be integrity and accountability within the Public Service. Australian Natural Disasters -1 13:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland [by video link] I join you today from Brisbane, but I can tell you that you don't have to be in Canberra to see that this government is becoming a complete shambles. What we've seen over the last week—with government members voting against the government and fighting with each other and rumblings again about leadership changes on the Liberal Party side—just shows how distracted the Morrison government has become, and Australians are paying the price for this distraction. Let's take just one example: disaster management. Just this week, we saw the Bureau of Meteorology again warn that we face La Nina conditions, which means more floods and more cyclones across much of our country. We saw the first cyclone emerge just off the Western Australian coast, and, of course, there are terrible floods wreaking havoc in much of New South Wales and other parts of the country. This is a clear reminder that disaster season has begun. This week I took the opportunity to spend some time in Cairns and visited the Cairns Disaster Coordination Centre with Senator Green and our candidate for Leichhardt, Elida Faith. We saw some great work being done by locals doing excellent things to make sure that the Cairns region is prepared for disaster season, but, unfortunately, their work is not being backed up by the Morrison government. This government continues to sit on what is now a $4.7 billion disaster fund that remains largely unspent. The Emergency Response Fund was announced by this government in April 2019—2½ years ago. It's been available to spend up to $200 million per annum on disaster recovery and mitigation. But, in the time that it's existed, it has earned the government $700 million in interest, and we learned this week that it has only actually spent $17 million on disaster mitigation projects. This fund shouldn't be a government cash cow. It should be keeping Australians safe. The failure of the government is leaving Australians exposed. (Time expired) Morrison Government -1 13:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Every new survey shows that trust in government and in democracy is plummeting. Time is running out to restore public confidence in democracy in this country. Yet, once again, today we saw this government block efforts to establish a national integrity commission. This government is the most secretive in history. It is a government that is allergic to transparency, terrified of scrutiny and desperate to keep its dirty deals and self-interested decisions hidden from voters. It attacks anyone who tries to lift the curtain. Charities and NGOs have helped people in Australia throughout COVID. They've supported those affected by devastating floods and fires. They're helping Afghan refugees rebuild their lives. They're calling for systemic changes to improve people's lives and livelihoods. The government is pushing through laws to make it harder for charities to advocate for change. Environmental and climate groups are crying out for action on the climate crisis. This government calls them 'vandals', tells the children of Australia that it doesn't owe them a duty of care and continues to meet with its fossil fuel donors behind closed doors. The government accepts millions in undisclosed donations to secure fuel its re-election and to secure cushy post-parliament jobs, but it refuses to fix donation laws. Terrified that people are crying out for a change of leadership, the Morrison-Joyce government pushed through laws to make it harder to set up new political parties, and they're making it harder now for vulnerable people to vote—suppress the vote, silence charities and stop candidates. Journalists are threatened with defamation and ministers sue citizens, and the ABC and SBS have their funding cut. If this government doesn't like what you say, it will silence you—unless, of course, you're a religious institution. And it will not, under any circumstances, let us debate having a strong national integrity commission. It is terrified of an ICAC, because we all know it will reveal how corrupt it is. Domestic and Family Violence -1 13:55 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania Violence of any sort by one human being against another is an ugly and completely unacceptable activity which deserves unequivocal condemnation. Violence is assault and a crime. The law, rightly, seeks to protect each of us against the other in this regard; it's vital for an orderly civilised society. Into these self-evident observations comes the term with which I've had great difficulty: the concept of domestic violence. It's as though it's of a lower category or lesser significance. It is not. If anything it's worse, as it is inflicted on those who are entitled to believe in the trust and protection of the perpetrator. As I've said before, domestic violence is in fact a crime, and should be called out as such. One of the informing experiences of my life was when I joined a group of fellow volunteers to establish a women's shelter in my local area. Serving on its inaugural committee and as its honorary legal adviser for a number of years, I saw and heard firsthand accounts which were simply horrifyingly ugly, not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. Not only is assault not okay, it's never acceptable, because it's a crime. And, while I've concentrated on violence against women, I recognise that family violence is a two-way street. But let's also recognise that the vast bulk of the traffic flows in one direction. Let's also recognise that it exists in all types of relationships: none, regrettably, is immune. Violence in all its forms is to be abhorred and considered criminal. Let this Christmas period be one of true peace, love and harmony amongst us all, especially in our households. Morrison Government -1 13:57 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Last week we saw real wages going backwards again. The CPI was up to three per cent and real wages under this government are only going up by 2.2 per cent. Costs are going up and petrol prices are going up under this government. Rents are going up and mortgages are going up. This is the longest period of stagnant wages in Australian history and COVID is not the problem. The government is the problem. It's the Morrison government that is the problem. Where are we on unemployment? There were 46,000 Australian jobs lost last month and more than 330,000 jobs lost since July. The unemployment rate is up to 5.2 per cent and for young Australians it's 13 per cent. There were 1.4 million Australians stood down last month. These were casual jobs, labour hire jobs and workers stood down to zero hours—that's the Morrison government's economic management. Good economic managers—save me! The effective unemployment rate is at about 15 per cent. This disastrous economic management has been a feature of this government for its whole eight long, moribund years of failure. And the government asks what the election is going to be about. Is it going to be about the Prime Minister's character? Well, bring it on! Let's have a discussion about the Prime Minister's character. Is it going to be about the Prime Minister's promises to deliver an integrity commission? Bring that discussion on! Bring it on! Is it going to be about an economy that's in the interests of ordinary Australians and Australian working families? Well, as Mr Chalmers said last week, we will have that debate every day of the week. As incomes fall and prices rise, the government doesn't have a leg to stand on and it's time we swept this government away. Commonwealth Integrity Commission -1 13:59 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia [by video link] We saw from David Littleproud this morning a statement saying that the reason we don't have a federal ICAC is somehow Labor's fault. The simple fact is that they haven't introduced one and that Labor will not resile from ensuring that we have a proper ICAC. This government needs to get on with it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE -1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Domestic and Family Violence -1 14:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. Can the minister confirm that, six months after it was announced in this year's budget, not a cent of the $260 million promised in the National Partnership Agreement on Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Responses has been paid to the states and territories to distribute to frontline services? 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Senator McAllister, for your question. Thank you very much for the opportunity to inform the chamber today that the agreement has been signed with the New South Wales government and the money is to be paid to them under the $260 million investment we have made in frontline services. That is in addition to the $130 million that was paid during the COVID pandemic to make sure that frontline services had the additional resources to be able to support women and children. Unfortunately, we saw an increase in demand for those services. But we made sure that that $130 million went straight to the states and territories last year and went straight to frontline services. In recognition that the impact of domestic and family violence as a result of the pandemic did not end at the end of June this year—it continues to impact our communities—we put in place an additional $130 million per year over two years, somewhat more than $153 million over five, to make sure that the states and territories are in a position to continue to support these frontline services. In return for this, we have asked the states and territories to provide us with information so that we can make sure the money is being targeted to the areas of greatest demand. I acknowledge today New South Wales has come forward and provided us with that additional information so that we can know as a country from a national perspective what actually is the issue, because, as I said this morning in my contribution, we need to make sure that every single dollar and every single resource that is applied to eliminating family, sexual and domestic violence in this country is targeted and coordinated in the best possible way. This is a shared responsibility; it doesn't just belong to the federal government. State and territory governments have a responsibility as well, and we will continue to work with them to make sure that happens. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McAllister, a supplementary question? 14:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In October this minister promised there would be a meeting of the women's safety ministers task force in November and said, 'One of the most important things that will be addressed at that meeting will be the draft of the next national plan to end violence against women and their children.' There are five days left in November. Does the minister still intend to keep her promise? 14:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As Senator McAllister should know—if she doesn't know—obviously getting a group of very busy ministers across the country together sometimes is not able to be delivered within the exact time frame. But I can assure Senator McAllister, everybody in this chamber and everybody listening, the absolute priority of this government is the next national plan, which is in the final stages of its draft. The draft will be consulted through the appropriate mechanisms, which are the advisory group, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander council, victim-survivor groups and the women's safety ministers task force, which is made up of women's safety ministers across the whole of the country. We'll meet all of the necessary targets and timelines so that it is in place, along with the action plans and implementation plans, to meet the timeline for the next national plan and associated plans to commence on 1 July 2022, when the existing plan expires. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McAllister, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales How can Australians believe that the Morrison-Joyce government will deliver any of its promises on domestic violence when it has failed to deliver on its past promises, leaving Australian women more vulnerable as a result? 14:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm not going to take that kind of ridiculous statement from those on the other side. This government has invested more than any other government in keeping Australian women safe, with $1.1 billion as a down payment on the national plan, off the back of $340 million on the fourth action plan. I'd like to ask the chamber: does anybody know how much money the Labor Party put against the first action plan of the 12-year plan put in place with bipartisan support by Julia Gillard, who was Prime Minister at the time? Absolutely nothing. Not one cent was invested in the first action plan by those opposite. They come in here when we have made absolute commitment—and I will continue to reiterate to the Australian women who need the support that this government is totally committed to doing two things: we are committed to listening to you and we are committed to delivering for you. That is not something that anybody on that side has any credibility on. Domestic and Family Violence -1 14:05 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania My question is also to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. Noting that today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, can the minister outline to the Senate the Liberal and National government's commitment to addressing this critical issue? 14:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Askew for her question and her ongoing interest and advocacy on this particular issue. Today it is really important that we reflect on and acknowledge the absolute blight that family, sexual and domestic violence is on our nation. One in four Australian women experience sexual violence. One in six Australian women experience physical violence at the hands of a partner after reaching the age of 15.The lifetime impact of that family, sexual and domestic violence is absolutely devastating on survivors. That is why we made the largest ever commitment to supporting Australian women with our $1.1 billion investment in the 2021-22 budget. Whilst those on the other side will seek to play politics with this and claim that we are not interested in addressing this issue, what I would say is: look at our track record. We are addressing this issue and we will continue to do so. Just last month we rolled out the $164 million escaping violence payment—a program which was the first of its kind on a national scale—to provide women who make that extraordinarily brave decision to leave a violent relationship with $5,000 of support to make sure that they've got a platform on which to build a new life for themselves and their children. We've already heard a number of really positive stories about women who have accessed that support. We have also hosted the first ever national women's safety summit. We will continue to make sure that we provide the resources, in all areas of responsibility, whether it be leadership, prevention, early intervention—most particularly providing that $260 million in the national partnership agreement, providing safe places so women have somewhere to go, making that sure we can keep women safe in their homes when it is safe to do so. I want to say to every single Australian: we are listening to you and we are acting. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Askew, a supplementary question? Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Minister, how important is listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women as the government works towards ending violence against women and their children? 14:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As policymakers, we must not just listen; we must recognise and we must include the voices and the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and girls and empower them to develop and deliver programs for their own communities. That's why today we announced the $2.8 million to deliver the final stages of Commissioner June Oscar's Women's Voices project and to start the process of drafting a dedicated action plan to provide real and tangible results on the ground for the First Nations women under the next national plan. This will include a summit that will be chaired by Commissioner Oscar. The summit will focus on women's leadership within Indigenous communities and decision-making, as well as deliver on the extraordinarily important issue of family, domestic and sexual violence within those communities. On the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women it's important, not just as a government but as a country, that we reaffirm our commitment to Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander women and girls. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Askew, a second supplementary question? Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Can the minister update the Senate on how the government is protecting women and children by encouraging respectful behaviours in the community? 14:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia (—) (): Any violence against women and children is everybody's business. If we really are going to end violence against women and their children, and all members of our community, we must give people the tools and the education to understand how their behaviours and their words impact on other people, and we must start a conversation nationally about respectful behaviours and around consent. That's why we have announced that we are investing an additional $21 million to extend our hugely successful Stop it at the Start campaign. This campaign gives people the tools and the confidence to call out disrespectful behaviours and attitudes. Evaluation research has shown that, encouragingly, we've seen some positive results within the community, with more than two-thirds of Australians recognising this campaign and 73 per cent of people saying that they were inspired to act and call out disrespect. We must make sure every Australian knows how to do that and does it. (Time expired) Member for Dawson -1 14:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Yesterday the minister told the Senate that Mr Morrison had counselled Mr Christensen about his online activities, which have incited violent and threatening comments directed at Premier Andrews and Catherine King MP. Senator Birmingham then had to correct the record to admit that Mr Morrison had in fact done nothing and it was Mr Joyce who had done so. Why has Mr Morrison not spoken to Mr Christensen directly? 14:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Mr Christensen is a member of the National Party, and Mr Joyce is the leader of the National Party. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, a supplementary question? 14:11 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales So much for leadership! After three days of questions in the Senate, comments on Mr Christensen's Telegram posts have been completely wiped overnight and the ability to comment has been disabled. Who made that decision? 14:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I assume the ultimate decision was made by whoever the administrator of those accounts is, which I would assume to be the member for Dawson. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, a supplementary question? 14:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Minister, has Mr Morrison spoken directly with Mr Christensen about his call in the House yesterday for civil disobedience? 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I think Mr Morrison spoke to Mr Christensen, the House and, through that, the nation in relation to those remarks. Mr Morrison made clear his view that every single person should obey the law and that no-one should encourage anyone to disobey the law. They are the words that Mr Morrison made very clear in the House in relation to a question on this matter yesterday. Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 -1 14:13 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question is to the Attorney-General. In October 2018, the Prime Minister was asked what his message was for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and gender-diverse students who faced being expelled from school simply for being themselves. The Prime Minister said that their PM 'understands and is going to take action to fix it'. Attorney-General, it has been three years. Why, instead of removing discrimination against students, are you rushing through legislation that is a Trojan Horse for hate? Why are you rushing through legislation that is going to increase the ability to discriminate against LGBTIQ students rather than protect them? 14:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Rice for the question. Senator Rice, the premise that you have put in relation to the Religious Discrimination Bill, which the Prime Minister today introduced into the House of Representatives, is wrong. It is actually wrong. You would be aware that Australia is a religiously and culturally diverse country. We have an age discrimination act, we have a racial discrimination act, we have a disability discrimination act and—as you know, Senator Rice—we have a sex discrimination act. But what we currently don't have in this country is protection for people of faith and those who don't have faith. We seek to fill that gap. Senator Rice, you would already be aware that, under the Sex Discrimination Act, these protections, or exemptions, for religious bodies have been in place for many, many years and supported by both sides of parliament. In fact, in 2013 Mr Dreyfus, when he was the Attorney-General, made amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act but ensured at the same time that the protections for religious bodies were maintained. In relation to the Religious Discrimination Bill, this is about protecting from discrimination people of faith and those who don't have a faith. The summation you have put to the Senate, Senator Rice, is just wrong. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Rice, a supplementary question? 14:15 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Prime Minister said he was going to take action to protect LGBTIQ students, yet the only action we have seen is an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission that can't report before 2023. Students who started high school in 2018 will have graduated before the inquiry reports. Minister Stoker on radio this morning was very clear that this bill will continue to allow schools to sack teachers on the basis of their sexuality and gender. Is this yet another time where the Prime Minister has lied to save his political skin? The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Abetz on a point of order? Senator Abetz N26 That clearly needs to be withdrawn. It's a reflection on the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim on the point of order? Senator McKim JKM Yes, just briefly on the point of order: Senator Rice was asking a question. She was not making an assertion. The PRESIDENT 30484 There is no protection merely in asking a question if something is a direct imputation against the member of another place. I will ask you to withdraw the last part of the question and then I will allow the minister to answer. Senator RICE 155410 I will withdraw and reword it— The PRESIDENT 30484 No, just withdraw, thank you, Senator Rice. The Attorney-General has the call. Senator CASH I0M The Religious Discrimination Bill would only prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity. Its exemptions only operate in relation to that prohibition. It will not in any way affect the current exemptions that religious bodies have and, as I said, that the Labor Party supported. In fact, Mr Dreyfus, when he was the Attorney-General, recognised and we all voted for the fact that when changes were made to the Sex Discrimination Act the exemptions would continue to apply to religious bodies. In relation to students, the Prime Minister and I have made it very clear to the ALRC that we have a very clear expectation that no student should be expelled from a school because of their sexual identity. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Rice, just before you ask your second supplementary question, you did need to withdraw. However, I should have let you restate the question. I apologise for that, but let's move to your second supplementary. 14:18 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Attorney-General, can you confirm that under this legislation it will be legal for someone to tell their sporting teammate that it's sinful for them as a single-mother to have a child outside marriage or that it's the work of the devil that their lesbian neighbour is lesbian and needs to find a husband and that it will be legal for someone to say that they don't recognise their trans-woman colleague as a woman and insist on referring to them as male? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The bill provides, and I hope we can all agree with this, that simply stating in good faith one's religious beliefs or, in the case of an atheist, the fact that you don't have a belief in and of itself is not discrimination. If, Senator Rice, by the way you have put it, you're implying that it would be a malicious statement, it would be a statement perhaps with intent to intimidate, threaten or harass, then that clearly is not acceptable. But I would believe in Australia that the ability of people of faith and not of faith to freely discuss their religion or lack of religion, to freely be able to explain their religion or lack of religion is something that each and every one of us can support. But if it is malicious, as you say, Senator Rice, then no. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! I remind senators on both sides of the chamber that interjections are always disorderly. I do need to be able to listen to both the question and the answer. Member for Dawson -1 14:19 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Mr Morrison stood up this morning to say that it's a great shame the Treasurer has to be offered personal protection because of his Jewish faith. LNP MP George Christensen has previously appeared on a Neo-Nazi podcast and has repeatedly posted anti-Semitic content on his telegram referencing the 'great reset' and 'global elites' as well as anti-Semitic imagery. Does Mr Morrison think these anti-Semitic posts from Mr Christensen are not serious enough to even warrant a conversation with Mr Christensen? 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As Senator Cash was discussing, discrimination, the promotion of extremism or attempts to vilify have no place, whether they be on the grounds of somebody's gender, sexuality, age, race or faith, and all of those matters rightly deserve condemnation. Senator Keneally is making a number of assertions in relation to what is being posted by the member for Dawson. I don't have details of those, but I'm sure that, if Senator Keneally wishes, she can provide them to me at a later point. Obviously, we would condemn any such actions that promoted anti-Semitism, just as we would condemn them if they were promoting any sense of lack of tolerance for people of any other faith, or for any other attribute that is worthy of respect. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Keneally, a supplementary question? 14:22 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I seek leave to table a copy of the social media posts that I just referred to. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted. Senator KENEALLY LNW Mr Christensen has posted about Premier Palaszczuk, inciting comments featuring images of her with a hook nose and violent threats such as suggesting a noose was needed, sharing details of which venues she visits, suggesting someone harass her, asking where Lee Harvey Oswald is, and calling for public execution from a tree. Does Mr Morrison think Mr Christensen's posts are not serious enough to even warrant a conversation with him? 14:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia (—) (): As I said before and many times during the course of this week—and as the Prime Minister has said in relation to condemning those who seek to incite any violence—we do not accept any role for those who promote violence or intolerance, particularly on grounds relating to faith or to any of the other personal attributes of which I spoke before. There are clear pathways for action to be taken. Senator Keneally has referenced some of those earlier this week regarding whether certain matters had been referred to the police or otherwise, but in relation to these sorts of posts Senator Keneally may find it helpful, if she wants to ask about these things, to provide copies of them in advance—(Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Keneally, a second supplementary question? 14:23 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I seek leave to table the posts that I just referred to. The PRESIDENT 30484 There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator KENEALLY LNW Will Mr Morrison now speak to Mr Christensen, who has fomented and stoked threats of violence and anti-Semitic sentiment for his own political benefit? 14:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As I indicated earlier, both prior to yesterday and subsequent to yesterday, the leader of Mr Christensen's political party, the National Party, has spoken to him. COVID-19: Vaccination -1 14:24 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Two days ago, it was reported that the Andrews Labor government in Victoria has refused to rule out mandating COVID-19 injections for schoolchildren in that state. Does the Morrison government support COVID-19 injections being forced on schoolchildren in Australia—that is, without written parental permission? 14:25 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Roberts for his question. All people who have a COVID-19 vaccine are asked to provide consent to the process. That's part of the process by which we've put in place the vaccination program. We ask those receiving the vaccine to provide consent. Of course, in some circumstances, in sensitive sectors and on the basis of medical advice, we have worked with the states to require some members of the workforce to have a vaccine—for example, those in aged care or the health system, some frontline workers and people working in circumstances where the risk of contracting COVID is very strong. But all the way through, we have said, from a national perspective, that as much as possible it should be a voluntary process. I think the Australian people have demonstrated, through their actions, that they want to participate in the vaccination program. We're at over 90 per cent with a first dose and well over 85 per cent with a second dose. Australians have turned up in their droves to get vaccinated. I was looking at the figures this morning. Of those who are currently eligible to take up a booster shot—which is a bit over 500,000 people who, on the basis of their vaccination date, will have reached the six-month period—in excess of 75 per cent have turned up to have a booster shot. The Australian people have overwhelmingly demonstrated their understanding of the importance and value of vaccination, and they're turning up to get vaccinated. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Roberts, a supplementary question? 14:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [by video link] I thank the minister for his answer. What measures is the Morrison government taking to ensure that state and territory governments are unable, without written parental permission, to force COVID-19 injections on schoolchildren in Australia? 14:27 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Australian government continues to work cooperatively with the states with respect to the vaccine rollout through the forum of the national cabinet. Obviously the states and territories have, within their own realm, some capacities with respect to mandates, and we've seen that play out in some states. But overwhelmingly, from a national perspective, the position of the Australian government has been from the beginning and continues to be that the vaccination program should be a voluntary program. And, as I've indicated to you in the answer to your primary question, Senator—through you, Mr President—Australians have overwhelmingly demonstrated their desire to be vaccinated, because they know that we have safe vaccines, they know that they work and they know that the vaccines will protect them, their families and their communities, and that's important. I would urge all states to ensure they have a proper approval process—a consent process—for the application of vaccines. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question? 14:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [by video link] I again thank the minister for his answer. Last week the Prime Minister stated that he did not support governments forcing injection mandates, yet state and territory governments are imposing these mandates on millions of Australian people, to drive injections. What measures has the Morrison government taken to ensure that Australian federal, state and territory governments are not enforcing COVID-19 injection mandates? 14:29 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania (—) (): As I indicated very early in the answer to the primary question, there is a requirement for Australians to provide consent or, in the circumstances of a minor—a child aged between five and 11, for whom there is not yet an approved vaccine—for consent to be provided. That's the circumstance that I've indicated. I would expect that each state and territory comply with that process, that there is a consent provided, and, if there is a rationale for a medical exemption, that would be taken into account as a part of that process. My experience so far of medical exemptions is that they are very, very small. In the aged-care workforce sector, for example, those who received medical exemptions were about 0.3 per cent. But I would urge all states to ensure that the appropriate consents are obtained when providing vaccines to Australians. (Time expired) Women's Economic Security -1 14:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal-National government is supporting the economic prosperity of Australian women as we reopen Australia and secure our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank Senator Henderson for her question and her ongoing support for the future prosperity of Australia's women. On this day, where we recognise the importance of protecting Australia's women from violence, we should also acknowledge that the Morrison government is very much backing Australia's women to reach their full potential. We know that when women succeed, Australia succeeds. When women participate fully in the economy, it's not just good for us; it's good for all Australians. The Morrison government has put money where our mouths are, investing $3.4 billion of new funding through this year's Women's Budget Statement, including investments in women's safety, economic security and health and wellbeing. Women are at the forefront of supporting the economic recovery from COVID-19. Under this government, the women's workforce participation rate is on an upwards trajectory, even in the face of the short-term impacts of lockdowns and the pandemic. We are achieving this by creating more choices and more chances for more Australian women. The Morrison government has invested $1.7 billion to improve the affordability of child care by increasing the childcare subsidy for families with multiple children. We know that these are the parents, the majority of whom are women, who face the greatest challenges and disincentives on returning to work. We have also removed the annual subsidy to support the choices of Australian families when it comes to making the decision about balancing work and care. These changes are estimated to directly benefit around 250,000 Australian families, adding up to around 300,000 additional hours of work per week. That figure is the equivalent of around 40,000 individuals working an extra day per week, with a boost to GDP of around $1.5 billion every single year. Our focus is always on practical outcomes that make a real difference to women's lives—not thought bubbles, not headlines. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Henderson, a supplementary question? 14:33 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government is supporting Australian women to secure their economic future? 14:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Morrison government understands that the role of government is as an enabler and as a standards setter. That is one reason why we're supporting more women into leadership positions and jobs for the future. We know that 'women in STEM' is not just a tagline. It's a lived reality and a priority in order to create the digital economy of the future. Careers in STEM are in demand and, crucially, are one of the highest-paid sectors of our economy. Our government is committed to ensuring that there are more talented, educated and ready-to-lead women in the pipeline. We are investing $42.4 million over seven years to support more women with higher-level STEM qualifications. We're also supporting industry led programs, like Skill Finder, to provide flexible microcredentials that are in high demand. Additionally, we're partnering with universities to offer scholarships and identify STEM fields with the highest growth potential to support women into the jobs of the future. These programs build on the successful Women's Leadership and Development Program, where we committed a further $39.8 million. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Henderson, a second supplementary? 14:34 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister explain the importance of a collaborative approach across government and industry in reducing barriers to improving women's economic security? 14:34 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, thank you, Senator Henderson. The Morrison government recognises that reducing the gender pay gap requires targeted policy and partnership between government and the private sector. But, before I talk about what's ahead, let me point out where we've come from. When we took office, the gender pay gap was 17.4 per cent, and now it is 14.2 per cent. There is more to do, and as a government we believe that implementing policies should in fact shift the dial—policies not put in place for show; we believe in implementing policies that shift that dial, not policies that give millionaires free child care but ones that have real substance. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister Hume, resume your seat. Order on my left. I couldn't possibly hear what the minister was saying. Once the chamber is silent—Minister, you have the call. Senator HUME 266499 That's why we put policies in place that actually shift the dial, not ones like Labor's plan to give millionaires free child care. That's why we put the Women's Budget Statement in place and committed to a full review of the Workplace Gender Equity Agency to determine how the government can further encourage the private sector to do its bit to close the gender pay gap. (Time expired) Afghanistan -1 14:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question as to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Senator Cash. Minister, there are a large number of people in Afghanistan who were issued 449 visas by the immigration minister during the fall of Kabul. These visas were of three months duration and are about to start expiring. DFAT advice during the fall of Kabul and since has been that Afghan nationals in Afghanistan who hold Australian visas should not attempt to leave Afghanistan due to the dangers of such a journey. Many who chose to ignore that advice are now safely in Australia. But those who followed the DFAT advice and stayed in Afghanistan are watching their visas run down, and all your government is doing is advising them to apply for other classes of visa. The 449 visas represent a lifeline for people in danger—a lifeline that you cannot in conscience snatch away. Will the minister do the right thing and extend those 449 visas and preserve the lifeline of safety from the Taliban that was offered three months ago? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator McKim for the question. Senator McKim, I hope you would join with me in acknowledging that Australia does have a long and proud history of helping those who are most in need. In terms of the safety in particular of locally engaged employees in Afghanistan who've supported Australia's mission in Afghanistan, that is, I think you would have to acknowledge—and certainly the Minister for Foreign Affairs has done an outstanding job— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, a point of order? Senator McKim JKM The point of order is relevance. The minister is reading from a pre-prepared brief on locally engaged employees. That was most emphatically not part of the question I asked. I asked specifically about 449 visa holders. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, I am listening carefully to the minister's answer. She has been going for only a very short period of time. Minister, I've given Senator McKim a chance to bring you back to the question, but I am listening carefully. Senator CASH I0M What I was saying is that it's a high priority of the Morrison government. That is why, on 18 November 2021, the Australian government announced that the subclass 449 visas granted to Afghans who supported Australia's mission in Afghanistan, and their families, who had not yet arrived in Australia, would be extended on an ongoing basis. This includes subclass 449 holders who are certified locally engaged employees of the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Federal Police, and other persons who have working relationships with the Australian government. It was also announced that those outside the locally engaged employee program who were granted a subclass 449 visa that will expire are to receive priority in Australia's humanitarian and refugee intake. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, a supplementary question? 14:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Very little or no comfort there, Minister. The government has said that it will not return or refoul any Afghan national currently in Australia. But what are you doing to ensure they have durable solutions in their lives—priority access to family reunion and pathways to permanent residency? Will you help these people and their families find permanent safety or will you continue to leave them in limbo with the threat of being returned to Afghanistan hanging over their heads? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator McKim, I hope you would acknowledge that, certainly, when it comes to the safety of those who were locally engaged employees, Australia is doing what it can. We have put in place what is a high priority for our government. In that regard, I do commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs for her involvement in this process. For evacuees who have already applied for a permanent visa, Senator McKim, such as a family, skilled or humanitarian visa, the Department of Home Affairs will continue to process that application— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, resume your seat. Senator McKim on a point of order. Senator McKim JKM Again, Mr President, the same point of order as previously—on relevance. This question is not about evacuees, this is about any Afghan nationals who are currently in Australia on temporary visas. That was very clear in the question—very clear. I can't believe that the minister doesn't have a brief on this, by the way. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, you don't need to add commentary. You have brought the minister back to the question. I'm listening very carefully to the minister's answer. Minister I would remind you that there's a requirement to answer the question and I give you the call. Senator CASH I0M Thank you. Senator McKim, to the extent that I don't have the information you're seeking I will seek to get it. I am trying, however, to provide you with the relevant information that I do have, in particular in terms of the permanent visa pathway for Afghan refugees. As I was actually saying, Australia's migration law changed on 12 November of this year to allow Afghan evacuees in Australia who hold a subclass 449 visa to apply for an offshore humanitarian visa. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, a second supplementary question. 14:42 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, there are just under 7½ thousand Afghan nationals outside Australia who are waiting to have their partner visas processed. These are partners of Australian citizens or permanent residents. Some are in hiding in Afghanistan and at risk of imminent death. That includes, of course, many women and children. Many thousands have been waiting for years for their partner visas to be processed. Will the minister issue them 449 visas so they can come to Australia and be safe while their substantive visas are being processed? 14:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator McKim, the government, as you would know, recognises the importance of family reunion for refugees and humanitarian entrants. You would also know that our humanitarian program reunites refugees and people who are in refugee-like situations overseas with their family in Australia. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Once again, on relevance. The question was not about refugees or humanitarian visas, it was about people who are partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents who had applied for partner visas. That is not about refugees or humanitarian entrants. I ask you to draw the minister to the question. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim, I will allow you to draw the minister to the question. I have been listening and I do not yet believe that I can say the minister is not directly relevant. I give the minister the call— Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, I'm ruling— Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I'm sorry, I'm asking you to rule. Are you ruling that there's no point of order? The PRESIDENT 30484 I'm ruling that there is no point of order. I'm listening carefully to the answer— Senator Wong 00AOU [inaudible] on the point of order before you rule formally. If you haven't, I'll just put it to you that Senator McKim is asking about a completely different class of visa to the class that the minister is speaking about. It is not relevant and I make that submission to you, consistent with our previous submissions over the last few days about your role in calling the minister to the question. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, the minister has only had part of the time to answer the question. I do not believe I have enough information yet to assess whether the minister is being directly relevant. I have allowed Senator McKim to call the minister back to the question and I'm listening carefully. Attorney General, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M Senator McKim, if I can get any further information for you, I will. You clearly do not want any information in relation to what the Australian government is doing for Afghan locally engaged employees et cetera more generally, but, to the extent that I can get further information from the minister, I'll do that. COVID-19: Vaccination -1 14:45 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Is the Morrison-Joyce government prepared to consider an override of existing vaccine mandates as has been proposed by Senators Rennick and Antic? 14:45 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I indicated in my answer to Senator Roberts earlier, the position of the Australian government has always been that, through the vaccine program, vaccination should as much as possible be a voluntary process. As I also indicated in my answer to that question, Australians have overwhelmingly turned up to be vaccinated. We are at almost 92 per cent with a first dose and we're in excess of 86 per cent with a second dose. As I indicated to the chamber before, of the 508,000 Australians who are eligible for a booster dose, over 75 per cent have turned up for a vaccine The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is direct relevance. I'd refer you to the remarks of Senator Ryan, when he held this position, that obviously short, sharp questions do require a greater degree of relevance. Senator Ciccone's question was a very simple question. It was not about Australians getting vaccinated. It was a simple question about whether the government is prepared to consider an override of vaccine mandates as some coalition senators propose. That was the only topic raised. The PRESIDENT 30484 I will agree, Senator Wong, to the extent that this was a fairly narrowly phrased question. I am listening carefully to your answer, Senator Colbeck. I do note that you have been speaking for only a short part of your answer so far. I will bring you back to the question, however. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I'll go back to the beginning of my answer, where the first thing I said was that the Australian government's position all the way through has been that, as much as possible, the vaccination program for Australians should be a matter of choice—as much as possible. There are some mandates in place that have been supported by health advice provided to the AHPPC, and that has been worked through with the states. The states have put in place, through public health orders, supports for those processes for health workers, for frontline health workers, for aged-care workers, for home-care workers and for a number of others. So, in some circumstances, where the health advice has indicated that, we have supported the process of mandates. But we have said all the way through, and our position has not changed— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, resume your seat. Senator Keneally? Senator Keneally LNW My point of order is relevance. Again, just making the point that the minister, with only 30 seconds left, has not yet gone to the very short, very direct question: will they override existing vaccine mandates? The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X On the point of order in this regard, the opposition is now seeking to dictate the terms in which a minister answers the question. You did bring the minister's attention to the question previously. The minister has been directly addressing issues in relation to mandates as they apply to the vaccination rollout. The minister has clearly been addressing those issues in relation to mandates and the voluntary application of the vaccine rollout. That is directly relevant to the question. The fact that the opposition may be seeking a 'yes' or 'no' type answer is not, and indeed many presidents have ruled very clearly, within the power of the President—to define how a minister answers the question. The answer needs to be directly relevant to the question, and Senator Colbeck, by addressing issues around vaccine mandates, is clearly being directly relevant. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, on the point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, that last submission to you is clearly not consistent with precedent, and if you wish to take advice we certainly would be happy for you to do so. Secondly, we are not seeking a 'yes' or 'no' answer; we simply want him to address the issue of override. He has not gone near the issue of override, and that was the question. The PRESIDENT 30484 I've been listening very carefully to the minister's answer. In stating the government's position directly in relation to the question, I think that is being directly relevant. I am happy to review the Hansard on this, but I am happy to give the call back to Senator Colbeck at this point, if he wishes to continue. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Thank you. I will, as I was just doing, restate the government's position again, which has not changed: the vaccination program for Australians should be a voluntary program, where at all possible. I have indicated, on health advice through AHPPC and the national cabinet, that the Commonwealth government has supported some level of mandate, but the position of the Australian government has not changed—that this should be a voluntary program, where at all possible. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ciccone, a supplementary question? 14:50 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Has the government sought any advice on overriding existing vaccine mandates, and, if yes, when and for what purpose? 14:50 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I've indicated a number of times already—and I'm prepared to do so again—the government's position with respect to the vaccination program is that it should remain voluntary. The mandates that are being applied in states and territories are mandates that are being applied under state and territory law, not Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth's position in respect of those is that the mandates should be appropriate and proportionate in identified high-risk settings, events and contexts, and should be given effect through state and territory public health orders, which is exactly what's happened through the process. But our position throughout— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, please resume your seat. On a point of order, Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 On direct relevance, for the second time: I've been very specific. Has the minister sought any advice? That was the heart of the question that I asked. The PRESIDENT 30484 I'm listening carefully to the minister's answer. You've brought him back to the question. I will continue to listen to the minister's answer. Minister, you have the call. Senator COLBECK 00AOL So the government's position has not changed throughout the administration of the vaccination program. I've indicated to you the circumstances under which they should apply, and I will take on notice whether any new advice has been requested by the government. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary question? 14:52 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Will the minister rule out making any changes to arrangements which allow states and territories to enforce vaccine mandates, in order to secure the votes of Senators Rennick and Antic? 14:52 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania This is, as Senator McKenzie indicates, the states' house. However, the government's position with respect to the vaccine rollout has not changed. Just because Senator Ciccone asks me the same question in a different way doesn't mean that I'm going to have to give a completely different answer. The government's position with respect to this is completely clear. We have a position that's been consistent all the way through, and we maintain that position—that the vaccination program, where at all possible — The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Keneally! Senator COLBECK 00AOL should be a voluntary program, except for the circumstances that I've indicated through the answers that I've given today. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong! Senator COLBECK 00AOL It's a clear and it's a consistent position, which we have provided all the way through. Just because the Labor Party try and ask the same question in a different way doesn't mean that I'm going to change my answer. Small Business -1 14:53 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister please outline to the Senate how the Liberals and Nationals in government are putting in place the framework for small and family businesses to have the confidence to invest as we secure Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Davey for her question. I acknowledge all the work that Senator Davey does with rural and regional small businesses, in particular in the lead-up to Christmas, where each and every one of us should be looking to spend whatever money we can with our small and family businesses around Australia. The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator Ayres! Senator CASH I0M As we all know, small and family businesses are the lifeblood of the Australian economy— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator Ayres! Senator CASH I0M particularly when it comes to our rural and regional communities— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator Ayres, I have called you to order by name three times. Cease interjecting. Senator CASH I0M As we know, despite the comments from Senator Ayres across the chamber, these businesses have been the key to Australia's economic recovery. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M Senator Ayres's colleague, through an interjection, has said, 'Talk about jobs, talk about employment.' Can I tell you— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator O'Sullivan. Senator CASH I0M I can tell you, Senator Ayres, that on this side of the chamber we're always happy to talk about jobs. Let me assure you. Since we were elected to government, the economy has created almost 1.4 million jobs. Look at where Treasury said unemployment would be at the outset of COVID and, Senator Ayres, look at where unemployment is now. It is because of the policies put in place by the Morrison and Joyce government that so many more Australians have work than otherwise would. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order on my right and my left! Senator CASH I0M What we want to do is say a big thank you to all of the small and family businesses out there because, colleagues, as you all know, the closest those on the other side have ever come to a small business is to close it down. That's what you want to do: close down small businesses across Australia. Just look at the tax policy you took to the last election—$387 billion in additional taxes. Senator Ayres, what would that have done to all of the small businesses in Australia? If you close down a small business, people lose jobs. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M That's right, you want to talk about jobs? You talk about job losses, we talk about backing Australians each and every way and making sure that they have jobs. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Davey, before I go to your supplementary question, I remind you, Attorney-General, to direct your marks through the chair, not through another senator. 14:57 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Thank you, Minister, for that response. Can you also explain how the government's plan for lower taxes has helped to create more jobs—as opposed to what Senator Ayres has been claiming—and put more money back into the pockets of workers and businesses across Australia? 14:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is a continuation of my answer to the first question. When it comes to lowering taxes, it is just in the DNA of a coalition government. We will do everything in our power to ensure that Australians are able to keep more of their money and that all of those businesses out there, particularly small and family businesses, are able to keep more of what they earn. That is in direct contrast, colleagues, to those on the other side. Their gift to the Australian people, had they been elected at the last election—and you would have legislated it with the help of the Australian Greens—would have been $387 billion in additional taxes. We know they are still wed to that policy. Just weeks ago we saw Labor was planning another hit—not surprising—to small and family businesses with $27 billion in higher taxes on 300,000 family businesses. What contempt for business in this country! The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Davey, a second supplementary? 14:58 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Why is it so important for us to continue to support small and family businesses, and what are the risks that would derail the small-business-led economic recovery that we're on? Honourable senators interjecting— 14:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The reason we back small and family businesses and businesses generally in Australia, Senator Davey, as you know, is that they are the job creators in this country. Governments don't create jobs. What they do is put in place the economic policies that can see businesses in Australia prosper, grow, create more jobs for Australians, or—we will never be on the 'or' side of the chamber. That's for those on the Left, on the Labor side of politics. You don't like business for some reason, and yet businesses are the job creators in this country. That is why we are proud in the Morrison-Joyce government to back our job creators every step of the way. If there is a policy we can put in place that will ensure they have the capacity to prosper, to grow and to create more jobs for Australians, that is exactly what we will do. We will back our small and family businesses, the job creators of this country, every single step of the way. Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 -1 15:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. On 13 October 2018, during the Wentworth by-election, Mr Morrison promised, 'I will be taking action to ensure amendments are introduced as soon as practical to make it clear that no student of a non-state school should be expelled on the basis of their sexuality.' Why did the Morrison-Joyce government promise that when it wasn't true? 15:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I disagree with the statement you have made. The Prime Minister was very clear in the work he has been undertaking. In the first instance, we said that we would refer what Senator Sheldon has referred to to the Australian Law Reform Commission. The reason we have done that is that they are now undertaking a broad review of all exemptions for religious bodies in discrimination law across Australia. At the same time, we implemented the religious freedom review and today was the culmination of that—the Prime Minister himself introducing into the House of Representatives the Religious Discrimination Bill to ensure that Australians of faith and those not of faith should not be discriminated against because of their religion. Senator Sheldon, as you know, the Prime Minister has been very, very clear in relation to students. I have formally written to the Australian Law Reform Commission and I have made it very, very clear the government's view in relation to students. No student should expelled from a school because of their sexuality. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question? 15:01 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales When the Attorney-General's assistant minister, Senator Stoker, was asked to respond to evidence that some students had been expelled over their sexuality, she said, 'Look, I'm not going to split hairs over that.' Does Senator Cash agree with Senator Stoker, that protecting LGBT kids from discrimination is splitting hairs? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! On my right. 15:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It is a great shame that Senator Sheldon, whom I actually have respect for, comes into this chamber and demeans the Religious Discrimination Bill and all that it stands for. It is a great shame that he has deliberately, probably for a political point, done that. I have tried to depoliticise this and bring forward a practical bill that could get bipartisan support. It is a great shame that you come into this chamber and you verbal Senator Stoker. Senator Sheldon, you will be aware, because it was former Attorney-General Dreyfus, who, in 2013, when amendments were made by the then Labor government to be Sex Discrimination Act in extending what protected attributes are, Labor were actually the ones, and we agreed with you, that should extend those exemptions to religious bodies. To come in here and play politics—shame on you. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary question? The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator Wong, Senator Canavan. 15:03 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales On 11 October 2018, Mr Morrison promised to change the law to protect LGBT kids from discrimination 'before the end of the year'. Can the minister confirm the earliest the Morrison-Joyce government will actually consider reform to protect LGBT kids from discrimination will be 2023, five years after Mr Morrison made his promise? 15:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, what I can confirm is this: there are a number of exemptions in place for religious bodies, including religious educational institutions, under antidiscrimination law in Australia. The Labor Party actually agrees with those exemptions. You did nothing whilst you were in government to change them. In fact, as I said, in 2013 when Mr Dreyfus was the former Attorney-General and did add some protected attributes to the Sex Discrimination Act, he made it very clear in his second reading speech that the exemptions that religious bodies, including religious educational institutions, currently had, would continue. They would be extended. So, if those on the other side are saying that you want to completely get rid of these exemptions, you are going against everything you have ever stood for. The Prime Minister has made it clear that no child and no student should be expelled from a school because of their sexuality. Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS -1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Domestic and Family Violence -1 15:05 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women's Safety (Minister Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator McAllister relating to domestic and family violence. Before I begin, I want to recognise victims-survivors both in this place and across Australia, far too many of whom were taken from their friends and families by this violence or were impacted by this violence. I especially want to acknowledge it today on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. We in this chamber know that violence—family violence, domestic violence and sexual violence—is rife in our community, and we know that the pandemic has, in many ways, for many women, made it worse. The minister said in her answers to questions today that the impact of violence didn't end during the pandemic, and that is absolutely correct. But what she didn't acknowledge is that, for too many women, it has worsened, and it has worsened at a time when there are other enormous pressures on women and on their families, as well. It has worsened at a time when we need support and action on this issue from the government more than ever before. One woman is killed every week by a current or former partner. We know that police are called to domestic violence incidents every two minutes. Violence is the leading preventable cause of death, illness and disability for women aged 15 to 44, and a 2017 report by White Ribbon found that women in First Nations communities are twice as likely to be victims of violence. As I said, the pandemic has caused significant spikes in family violence, with two-thirds of providers reporting an increase in abuse and, especially, in controlling behaviours. In October 2020, the Women's Legal Service in Adelaide reported having to turn away 450 calls from women earlier that year, during the first wave of lockdowns and quarantine in South Australia. Yet, in this context and in the context of all that we know, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has, for too long, failed to take seriously the task of delivering leadership on women's safety. Following the March 4 Justice, the Prime Minister announced his women's cabinet and the women's budget with great fanfare, but six months later we're still waiting for the draft national plan, and organisations are yet to receive the funding promised by this government. In February last year, it was reported that dozens of trials in the Family Court were directly impacted by funding shortfalls in legal aid. Refuges have reported having to turn away women, and only one in 10 women who want to stay at home have the necessary support to safely do so. The lack of leadership, though, isn't just from the federal government here in Canberra. It exists in my home state of South Australia as well, where we have seen Catherine House, the only domestic violence shelter in Adelaide—a dedicated refuge for women without children—being subject to a $1.2 million funding cut. Senators in this place, including, I know, Senator Wong and Senator Farrell, have a close relationship with Catherine House. Senator Grogan and I have visited this service many times. We've seen firsthand the incredible and important work that they do for some of the most courageous women in our state. That service has had $1.2 million worth of funding cut. At the federal level and the state level we hear platitude after platitude, but we have failed to see not just this year but over years and years—indeed, for decades and decades—the meaningful commitment of resources with the right level of urgency required to support women and families experiencing violence. Victims-survivors need so much more support. I am so proud of Senator McAllister and our leader, Anthony Albanese, who have just announced that a Labor government will fund 500 new community sector workers to support women and families fleeing family violence and establish a Commonwealth Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner to give victims-survivors a strong voice at the highest levels. Domestic, family and sexual violence is an epidemic in our community. For many women and families it remains an unseen burden that endangers their lives and livelihoods. To make Australia a fairer and safer place we must drag this horror into the light and deliver real and meaningful action to protect women and families from abuse and violence. Labor are committed to this. In government we will deliver this because we heed the calls for urgency. Women and families cannot wait any longer. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I thank Senator Marielle Smith for raising this very important issue, particularly on this day, which is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Family, sexual and domestic violence cannot be condoned or tolerated. Our government is absolutely committed to doing all it can to try to eliminate family and domestic violence from our nation; however, it is everyone's business. We must remember that we need to educate our young people so that they understand what coercive control and domestic violence are so that from a very young age they know how to see it, call it out and stop it. Our government has provided funding. Contrary to what Senator Smith was saying, our government delivered the landmark $3.4 billion Women's Budget Statement in the 2021-22 budget. This has had a record $2 billion investment for women's security initiatives since 2013, which includes $1.1 billion in the latest Women's Budget Statement. We held the National Summit on Women's Safety and we're currently developing the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Children. That includes investing $22.4 million over five years to establish the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. As I've said before, this commission does not absolve anyone else of responsibility in this issue, but it does establish a single point, the commission, that can work with all governments and all community groups to provide a crucial accountability mechanism to make sure that our collective efforts are focused on ending violence. Senator Smith referred to the Labor Party's commitment for 500 new frontline workers. While that sounds commendable on the surface, you have to be concerned about where the funding for that is coming from. Will they be withdrawing the funding from the existing $1 million investment that the Morrison government has made to work with the states and territories for domestic and family violence responses? We are working with them. We are funding through a national partnership agreement because that way ensures that our response is targeted, fit for purpose and meets local needs, which differ across the country. People here have quite rightly highlighted that the response in our remote, regional and Indigenous communities is going to be different to the response that is rolled out in Sydney or Canberra. Our government's approach, rather than Canberra dictating how money must be spent—like the Labor Party will: 'Here's 500 new workers and we'll employ them and we'll put them in our offices'—will be to provide flexibility to those with the knowledge on the ground to allow additional support to expand frontline services; to provide safe accommodation where needed; to provide perpetrator interventions; and to provide helplines, counselling services and training. That is how we will help eliminate violence against women in this country. We'll provide the support services that are needed, the training and the early education for all of our community, so we that can all work together to end the scourge of domestic violence. Across Australia I would say that every single Australian knows someone who has been a victim of some form of family and domestic violence, but it is still not spoken about and there are still many victims of domestic violence who do not speak about it, who do not come forward. We need to support those people. We need to wrap our arms around them and say that we are here for them, that we are listening to them and that our government is committed to providing that support. 15:16 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory [by video link] I rise to take note of the government's response to questions by Senator McAllister relating to the government's commitment to combating family, domestic and sexual violence. As Senator McAllister told the place this morning, domestic and family violence is a national crisis and a national shame. We know this, and the government knows this. Survivors and their advocates have been bravely speaking about this for years, calling for action from political leaders—advocates like the Tangentyere women's safety group from Alice Springs, who I brought to Canberra in 2018. They travelled the thousands of kilometres, from Alice Springs, to meet with government ministers and urge the government to listen to them. They spoke about the work they do on the front line of family violence. They showed other First Nations women and survivors of family violence that we can stand up and be heard. That was three years ago. We're now eight years into this coalition government and they still don't seem to be taking this issue seriously. They seem to be seen to be doing things—making announcements and promises, without ever actually delivering. We saw that in May when the government hastily cobbled together a woman's budget, a reaction to the nationwide marches for justice which were taking place right across the country. The government had to be seen to be doing something, so they promised $260 million in the budget to combat family, domestic and sexual violence—money that would be paid to states and territories to distribute to frontline services. Six months on, how much of that has been paid? Nothing. Not a cent. I would say to those opposite in government: it is not good enough. Securing women's safety requires more than a media release on budget night. Instead, we've seen delayed announcements and indifference to this policy area. Even now we're still waiting for a revised draft national plan which was promised by November. The minister did say today that it is in the final stages of its draft. Well, we certainly hope so. There are only five days left in November. How can Australians trust the government to deliver on its promises on domestic violence? It certainly can't. This government has failed to take action, clearly. Nowhere is this more apparent than here in the Northern Territory, which experiences the highest rates of domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia. On average there are 61 domestic and family violence incidents per day in the Territory and four domestic and family violence related homicides per 100,000 people per year. First Nations women account for 89 per cent of all victims in the Territory. Nationally Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience violence at roughly twice the rate of non-Indigenous women. It's past time to stop just talking about it and to elevate women's safety to a national priority. I'm proud to say that Labor does have a plan. As announced this week, an Albanese Labor government will implement a new family, domestic and sexual violence commissioner. This was a recommendation of a recent House of Representatives inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. Labor also supports calls for a separate national action plan for First Nations people to end violence against women and family violence. Labor will allocate an additional 4,000 units of social housing to women and children experiencing family violence and to older women on lower incomes as part of our housing Australia future fund. We will also provide $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for women. And Labor will establish 10 days paid domestic violence leave, because no woman should have to choose between her job and leaving an abusive situation. We have seen, time and time again, the Morrison government saying all sorts of things in this area. But one of the most disappointing things, this year in particular, was on budget night, when it made the tremendous announcement of a significant amount of money to go to women's places right across Australia to combat family violence—$260 million. And here we are, six months on, and not one cent of the $260 million has been spent. 15:21 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I'd like to begin by acknowledging what is taking place today in the Senate. Often, with the politicians, the Senate and the House of Representatives are seen as places of ya boo politics. But what we've seen over the course of today, and not just in response to this particular debate but also to the debate earlier today, is that serious issues are dealt with in a manner that is appropriate and that politics are taken out as much as possible because there's a common cause amongst politicians from across the political spectrum. And while there may indeed sometimes be different approaches in how to deal with such a pervasive issue as that of family and domestic violence, those who may be listening can be assured that this chamber is one of understanding that there is a pandemic—a perverse scourge—in Australia at the moment which has been going on for some time in relation to family and domestic violence. It should be reassuring to Australians that this Senate and senators in this chamber do take that seriously. People should be assured by that. Today, as has been noted, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. As speakers prior to me have pointed out, a woman—and when we say 'woman' it depersonalises it in a way; it's someone's daughter, mother or sister—is killed by their partner every 11 days, and one in five women over the age of 15 has experienced sexual violence. For many of us in this chamber that would mean we do know people who have experienced such violence. Over the course of the COVID pandemic, violence against women and girls has increased, with physical distancing and lockdowns making it harder for those women, girls and families to seek and receive help. This government is delivering unprecedented levels of resources toward Australian women's safety, their economic security and their health and wellbeing, and to support women to achieve their full potential. The 2021-22 Women's Budget Statement invested a record $1.1 billion in women's safety, which included $260 million for new national partnership agreements with the states and territories to increase the capacity of frontline support and crisis services. We are now developing the next national plan to end violence against women and children as a blueprint to end violence in all forms. When we talk about family and domestic violence, we should not just make the mistake of assuming that it is a women's problem or a men's problem. It should not just be put in a box and ticked as such. It is a problem that belongs to society, and all of us have a role to play. That is why it is so reassuring that this government is spending so much money to try to end this scourge. That is why there is widespread agreement across the chamber on the need to end this. We announced that the Morrison government would invest $2.8 million over three years to deliver the final stage of the Women's Voices project. As Minister Ruston said in her answer, this will include a national summit for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, chaired by June Oscar AO. We are listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. The summit will tell of the development of a First Nations action plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children. This action plan will be the primary mechanism for implementing Closing the Gap target 13— (Time expired) 15:26 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We've heard a lot today about violence against women, and a lot of statistics. In addition to the unacceptable number of women killed in Australia by a violent partner or ex-partner, many, many more are regularly subjected to sexual violence, physical violence, humiliation and other forms of abuse. We know from domestic violence services around the country that COVID-19 has exacerbated this for many women, who've been forced to isolate with their abusers, trying to keep themselves and their families safe. Last night, in my home state of South Australia, police officers from our Special Tasks and Rescue group, STAR Force, responded to an alleged assault on a woman that resulted in a four-hour siege. Let's just think about that for a moment—a woman, all alone, living with and allegedly abused by a man who was willing to hold a paramilitary force at bay for four hours with no anxiety and fear about doing that. It's simply unimaginable what terror she must have experienced over what you could only imagine was quite a lengthy period of time. This was in her own home, a place she should be able to rely on to be safe. Violence against women knows no barriers socially, culturally or socioeconomically. Since the start of COVID-19, we've seen the number of reported offences against women rise considerably in South Australia and across the rest of the country. While our community awareness of this issue is growing, which is a good thing, far too many women continue to live their lives in fear. Across Australia, refuges report turning away 50 per cent of the women who seek support and help. Currently, those at risk of experiencing domestic violence often cannot access any form of early intervention or support services while they try to avoid ending up as one of the horrendous statistics that we've heard today. Women's organisations say that, while they advise women to contact a crisis service at the point of crisis—because those are the only services they can access—they have nowhere to refer people in the earlier stages. There is no form of early intervention that is sufficient in Australia at this time. How can we leave so many women languishing in these hideous circumstances when awareness of the issue is so widespread now? We must look at this issue holistically. We must elevate its status well above the standing that it currently has under the Liberal-National government. We see them talking a big game in here while cutting critical funding to services on the ground. Labor will elevate this issue of violence against women— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The time for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Marielle Smith to take note of answers be agreed to. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS -1 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021 -1 Disallowance -1 15:31 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012, be disallowed [F2021L00863]. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021 should be disallowed as they amount to a prohibition of freedom of political communication and expression and expose charities to the risk of deregistration for actions most Australians accept as a right and in which they may have engaged, such as peaceful protests and sit-ins. Quite simply, the intent of these regulations is to stop charities engaging in lawful advocacy in pursuit of their charitable purpose. Millions of Australians donate, volunteer and are otherwise involved in charities every year. They provide frontline services in the areas of climate change, domestic violence, homelessness, refugee issues and a vast range of other social issues—issues this government doesn't really care about. Charities have raised issues and continue to advocate on issues such as black deaths in custody and the end of gender-based violence. These regulations would have huge consequences for the ability of charities to speak up and advocate on behalf of the communities they represent and are part of. Further, these regulations impose far harsher penalties on charities for any minor offence than on any other corporate citizen. Charities don't even have to have committed an offence. The Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission only needs to believe they might. If he believes that, they can be deregistered or refused registration. Charities are being held to a higher standard than any other organisation simply because the government is now going to categorise all their activities and advocacy as political activity. There is a huge contrast here. Someone could have a sit-in to draw attention to an issue, and their charity could be deregistered. But we have sports rorts, car park rorts, blind trusts and the misappropriation of public moneys and that all gets written up in some report by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Gaetjens, and sent to the dirty little secrets committee of cabinet—that is, the governance committee of cabinet that was established under Tony Abbott. Basically, it ensures that if you want to write about the government and its illegal activities you simply have it funnelled to that committee and you won't see the results for the next 20 years. How convenient that is. Concerningly, these regulations would hold a charity responsible even where an unknown member of the public simply comments on a charity's Facebook post and encourages people to participate in a demonstration, say a sit-in. That would be grounds for deregistration. There is no doubt that this will have a chilling effect on charities. It's obvious that this is intended to silence public discourse and action on political matters that impact charities and the Australian communities they assist. Am I being alarmist here? No. I refer all senators to the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. They are absolutely concerned about what I've just talked about. Charities will have no choice but to stay silent, out of fear of being shut down, and that is no accident. This is an intentional and deliberate method this government has chosen in order to wield more control and avoid being held to account. The government have become more and more autocratic, shutting down debate and criticism, avoiding accountability and using other quietening techniques they feel necessary to get themselves back into government. The government justifies these regulations as being needed to boost trust in the charities sector. Seriously? Charities are one of the most trusted sectors in the Australian community, certainly more than politicians, and yet this is what is being wielded at them. To suggest that these regulations are needed to shore up the public's confidence in the sector is patently false. Is there any institution that requires new laws to increase public trust? Certainly not in this sector. The government needs to get its priorities right. The minister made further amendments to these regulations on 11 November, imposing additional reporting requirements and clarifying that the types of summary offences that relate to impairment of an individual's health were only intended to cover offences relating to causing physical harm to an individual. These new amendments do not alter the substantive effect of the regulations subject to this disallowance motion. I want to end by quoting a few of the more than 100 charities who have expressed grave concerns about the regulation. The Barnardos Australia CEO, Deirdre Cheers, says: 'We are currently helping more than 13,000 children in need. If we have to turn even one of those children away, due to increased cost, it will be a tragedy.' The Fred Hollows Foundation CEO, Ian Wishart, says: Fred Hollows was well known for speaking out and demanding action from our political leaders. It's a key role of charities to advocate for those who don't have a voice. These laws limit the ability of charities to raise important issues and hold people in power to account. They have no place anywhere in the world, let alone Australia, where freedom of assembly and political participation, and basic human rights, are the cornerstone of our democratic society. Anglicare Australia says: … charity is not just about helping people in poverty. It's about creating a country where poverty doesn't exist. That's why we need to be able to stand up for the people we work with. These rules are designed to stop organisations like Anglicare Australia from speaking up for our communities and our country by punishing us—and shutting us down for arbitrary reasons. They are not just an attack on charities. They are an attack on democracy. …   …   … We're also calling on the Government to withdraw these changes—and end these attacks for good. They are wise words, and I ask senators to pay attention to them. This regulation is an awful regulation. If we look at the statement that our own committee has made on its concerns about this regulation, it's plainly obvious that the government has gone way too far here. It's unnecessary regulation, and I urge the Senate to assist me in having it disallowed. 15:39 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania [by video link] The charities and not-for-profits in Australia have brought support and respect throughout our community. The 2016 Giving Australia survey found that 8.7 million Australians—over 40 per cent of the population aged 15 and over—volunteered for charities and not-for-profits, providing an estimated $17.3 billion in value. Australians also give generously to charitable causes—around $12.5 billion a year, including about $3.5 billion in tax deductible donations. It's of little surprise that charities are so popular, when they've been established entirely for the purpose of promoting public good, whether it's helping vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians, tackling poverty overseas, promoting social justice and human rights, recording and preserving history or heritage, or protecting and caring for the natural environment. These aims are universally supported, even if there may be public debate about how they are achieved. We also need to recognise the vital role that charities and not-for-profits have had in helping Australians get through the COVID pandemic. When lockdowns and restrictions were in place, charities were the ones that worked hard, under difficult circumstances, to meet skyrocketing demand. There were charities helping to connect people who were feeling isolated and lonely, supporting people who had lost jobs and income, and delivering meals and household essentials. The impacts of the COVID pandemic could have been much worse if it not been for the hard work of so many of Australia's charities and their staff and volunteers. I thank Senator Patrick for bringing on this disallowance motion. The regulation he is seeking to disallow was designed to silence charities. It's another battlefront in the coalition's ongoing war on charities, and it is a war. Let me outline some of the history. While in opposition, the coalition campaigned for years against the establishment of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, and they wasted no time in trying to abolish it when they came to government. Failing at that, they appointed Dr Gary Johns to hit the ACNC. Dr Johns has a history of criticising charities, accusing them of what he called 'impure altruism', whatever that means. He once said that the then Abbott government should deny 'charity status to the enemies of progress' and referred to the Indigenous reconciliation charity Recognise as the 'officially sanctioned propaganda arm of the Australian government'. At the time Dr Johns was appointed, David Crosbie, from the Community Council of Australia, said it sent 'a signal to charities that the government is out to get them'. But the government's attempts to abolish and then undermine the ACNC were only the start of the war. Since Labor introduced the Volunteer Grants program, the coalition have slashed its funding in half. They've introduced no new initiatives to help recruit and retain volunteers, even though unpaid volunteering is considered to be worth almost $17 billion to charities and $39 billion to the whole economy, and despite the increased demand for volunteers during the COVID pandemic. I have spoken several times in the Senate chamber about the charity fundraising Senate inquiry that I chaired. Years before the inquiry was established, the sector was calling for charity fundraising reform—and they're still calling for it. Compliance with complex and outdated fundraising laws is costing the sector $15 million a year in red tape. The report's recommendations, delivered in February 2019, were supported by coalition senators and backed up by the government's own review three years ago. But the government has kicked the can down the road on fundraising law reform through six charity ministers—six. Just imagine if they put the same energy into addressing the sector's priorities as they have put into this regulation. Sadly, the regulation we're debating now is not the government's first attempt to silence charities. In 2014, the government initiated moves to amend the Competition and Consumer Act in order to ban consumer boycotts for environmental campaigns. In 2017, the original draft of the government's foreign interference legislation would have forced many charities to register as foreign agents and stop them from advocating on important social issues. The government eventually backed down and exempted charities from the registration requirement, but only after pressure from the sector. The government has also inserted gag clauses into many social services agreements, and this new regulation threatens charities with deregistration if they commit minor or summary offences. While no-one wants charities breaking the law, this is an absolutely massive overreach. A summary offence could be something as simple as blocking a footpath at a public rally or failing to shut a gate to private property. And just one person—only one person—has to commit such a minor offence to give the commissioner the power to investigate and even deregister an entire charity, large or small. Even more bizarrely, merely promoting an event at which a summary offence is committed can trigger a process that could result in deregistration. If all that isn't authoritarian enough, the regulation gives the commissioner the power to take action against a charity because he anticipates a summary offence being committed. That's ridiculous. Does the government think the commissioner has some kind of magic crystal ball he can use to predict lawless behaviour? It's as if we're living in the world of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, with the charities commissioner playing the role of the thought police. I wouldn't trust any commissioner with that kind of power, let alone someone with the outdated attitudes of Dr Johns. The peak community sector body, the Australian Council of Social Service, has described this new regulation as 'extreme overreach and an attack on our democracy'. Like ACOSS, charities and not-for-profits throughout Australia have raised real concerns that this regulation would effectively silence them—that the red-tape cost will be paid by all charities, regardless of whether they do public advocacy work or not. A recent pro bono Australian survey estimates that the regulation will cost the sector $150 million in the year it takes effect and $40 million every year after. Charitable causes will suffer, because the red-tape burden this government is imposing is beyond belief. It's heavy-handed and it's unnecessary. There are already provisions in place that allow charities to be deregistered for breaking the law. Contrary to the government's narrative of a charity crime wave gripping the nation—do you know how many charities have been deregistered in the past four years? I'm sure you don't, so I'll tell you: only two. Two of Australia's 59,000 charities have been deregistered for the kind of activism the government says is tarnishing the sector. Even the coalition members of the bipartisan Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee agreed that the rules are antidemocratic and give the charities commissioner too much power. After endorsing a report that contains major criticisms of this regulation, it would be the height of hypocrisy if those three senators did not support this disallowance motion. I understand from media reports that One Nation senators are considering backing the government and not supporting the disallowance. Can that be right? How could Senators Hanson and Roberts be so forthright only yesterday in fighting for what they see as rights and freedoms yet not support the freedoms of churches and charities to speak up on policy issues? How could One Nation senators happily consign those same churches and charities to around $270 million in additional red tape over the next four years? But that's the path One Nation are looking at supporting: less freedom and more red tape. I wonder whether that's what their supporters put them there for. Unlike the current laws, this regulation is not about stopping charities from engaging in unlawful activity. It's about silencing dissenting voices. Why does the Morrison government want to silence charities? The answer is obvious. This government is failing to act on climate change. The gap between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen. They continue to make savage cuts to overseas development assistance. So of course it's of little surprise that, when charities speak out, what they have to say is uncomfortable for this government to hear. But this government, instead of taking onboard the advice of charities, decides that the best defence is attack. That is why they have been waging war on the sector for eight years. Unlike the coalition, Labor values the important part charities play in public policy debate. As organisations that work at the coalface of social, economic and environmental causes, charities have a wealth of experience and a valuable perspective. This voice is vital to democracy and to good policy outcomes. And let's not forget that the charity sector kickstarted the campaigns for many vital reforms that are now widely embraced by Australians, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Medicare and marriage equality. Imagine where Australia would be now without these reforms and without the vital voice of charities to spearhead those campaigns? But the Prime Minister, who praises the 'quiet Australians', would prefer Australian charities and not-for-profits to stay completely silent. Like naughty children, he'd like charities to be seen but not heard. He doesn't want charities to have a key role in public discourse because to do so would actually make his government accountable for delivering on social outcomes. Mr Morrison would like to see charities planting trees and raising money for bushfire victims but not advocating for effective action on climate change. He'd like to see them running op shops and soup kitchens but not advocating to address the root cause of poverty and structural inequality. He'd like to see charities providing education, health care and clean water to impoverished communities overseas but not advocating for a fair investment in overseas development assistance. He'd like to see them providing legal assistance to victims of domestic and family violence but not advocating for greater respect for women or for the government to invest more money in emergency accommodation for victims of domestic violence and their children. The advocacy that Mr Morrison and his government so hate is how charities do some of their best work. But if you wage war on charities you're also declaring war on the people and causes they support. A war on charities is a war on the environment, a war on human rights, a war on poverty and a war on vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised Australians. For the sake of all Australians, this war must end. There's no charity crime wave and there's no need for this draconian law, so I urge all senators to vote for this motion and let charities get on with their important work. 15:51 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria This needs to be knocked off. These regulations are all about the government trying to silence its opposition and silence its critics, tilting the level playing field in its favour and tilting the level playing field of democracy in its favour. This needs to be seen as part of a whole suite of actions it's taking currently: stopping people from voting, through the voter ID laws, and the other legislation that's currently in the House, which is making organisations involved in advocating during election times jump through a huge amount of bureaucracy in order to do that. Basically, these regulations will shut charities down just for speaking out, for being critical of the government—for saying things that this government doesn't want to hear. These regulations will discourage charities from promoting and having a presence at peaceful protests. They will make it harder for charities to share their resources with community groups and, of course, they will wrap charities up in unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and threaten them with deregulation if they fail to comply. We know that the regulations and the penalties are disproportionate and incredibly punitive. They would see charities being shut down by the regulator because of really minor and inadvertent breaches of the law. But, if that's what the government wants to see, to ping a particular charity because they're particularly getting under its skin and niggling it just that little bit too much, that's the very sort of action that can be taken. In particular, some of the most outrageous parts of these regulations are that they expose charities to pre-emptive punishment if the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission believes that they're likely to breach the regulations in the future. 'Likely to breach the regulations in the future'—that's shutting charities down for something they may do in the future! That treatment is absolutely unprecedented. Neither for-profit corporations nor political parties can be deregistered because a staff member might do something in the future. This is a complete attack upon the ability of charities to be engaged in processes to advocate for human rights, the environment or social justice. We have the situation at the moment where charities are operating very fine, thank you. We do not need this sort of really punitive overreach by the government, which is going to have a massive impact—it will have a huge chilling impact. We know, of course that there has been a huge array of charities, right across the spectrum, which have united together through the Hands Off Our Charities Alliance, opposing these regulations. I really want to salute them all. It is remarkable we have had charities right from the environment groups through to quite conservative Christian organisations that have worked together with organisations right across the political spectrum because they all recognise what a huge impact on their operations these regulations are going to have. They absolutely must be overturned for the sake of charities to be able to operate fairly and appropriately in our democracy today. 15:55 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The government opposes this disallowance. The proposed changes to governance standard 3 seek to redefine the standard to capture the offences of trespass, vandalism, theft, assault and intimidation. This will empower the ACNC Commissioner to investigate such breaches of the law by charities and take enforcement action if warranted. Charities will still be able to undertake advocacy activities consistent with their charitable purpose, provided it is conducted lawfully. Registered charities that act lawfully and do not use their resources to promote others to engage in unlawful activities are already complying with the proposed changes. 15:56 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I'm proud to stand up to call for senators to vote to stop this attack on free speech in the charities sector. This is happening on the same day, the very same day, that Mr Morrison got up in the chamber at the other place, genuflected to religious freedom, and his Assistant Treasurer is busy smothering any attempt of religious charities to speak up against the government. I acknowledge the great contributions of my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Bilyk, who put on the record the detail of this, and those who participated in the debate. I point out that the marriage equality campaign commenced with charity action and so did the NDIS. This is a government that talks out of two sides of its mouth, dog whistling to win votes and never delivering for the Australian people, only delivering for itself. I urge the Senate to vote for this disallowance. It is an unnecessary and drastic overreach that will prevent charities continuing the fantastic work that we know that they do. The idea that in our common law system a charity could be deregistered merely on the suspicion a member of the organisation was committing a crime is totally outrageous. Extraordinarily, the ACNC Commissioner could deregister a charity that was neither charged nor found guilty of an offence. An entire charity such as Barnardo's Australia could be deregistered if just one of its staff or volunteers engaged in minor vandalism or trespassing, or if the charity cannot provide evidence to show it has taken reasonable steps to make sure resources are not used to promote or support unlawful contact. This type of collective punishment of NGOs is more reminiscent of Lukashenko's Belarus or Orban's Hungary. It does not reflect the Australian proud tradition of democracy and civic benevolent action by people of faith and people of no faith who seek to do good for their fellow Australians, and do it collaboratively. Just like with the voter suppression bill, this is yet another attempt by the government to win the next election through tilting the scales in its favour. Not content with rorting every grant program in sight, they want to keep the charity sector silent and acquiescent in an election year. This piece of regulation from the government is all about power and politics for them; it's not about good for the Australian people. The reason we're here is well and truly made clear by a submission of the Centre for Public Integrity, which says: Through the delegation of law-making powers— Which are the powers the government is using to put this really bad piece in action— policy decisions that affect the rights and obligations of individuals, business and industry are increasingly being made by the Executive without adequate parliamentary oversight or other forms of accountability. That's why we're here, trying to put the brakes on a runaway government that wants to take out the charities sector—the charity sector! It's not good enough to go after Australians for robodebt, not good enough to rort all the money through all the schemes—including the sports rorts, the car park rorts, the Building Better Regions rorts; now they want to go after the charities, who might in the future have a volunteer who might do something wrong. It is an overreach, and senators should vote against it. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:04]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 24 AYES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 19 NOES Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. Molan, A. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee -1 Delegated Legislation Monitor -1 16:07 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I present Delegated legislation monitor No. 16 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I would like to take this opportunity to again highlight the committee's significant concerns about the exemption of delegated legislation made under the Biosecurity Act from disallowance by the parliament. As senators would be aware, the initial emergency declaration in relation to COVID-19 was first made on 18 March 2020. Since that time, the government has made numerous pieces of delegated legislation which impact on the everyday lives of Australians. Chief amongst them is the overseas travel ban determination, which has severely restricted overseas travel by Australian citizens. In the monitor I have just tabled, the committee has commented on an instrument which amends the overseas travel ban determination to remove the automatic exemption for persons who ordinarily reside in another country from the overseas travel ban. The committee is extremely concerned that this instrument not only engages several of the committee's scrutiny principles, including freedom of movement, conferral of discretionary powers, consultation and matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment, but is also exempt from disallowance. It is the committee's view that emergency delegated legislation must be subject to appropriate parliamentary oversight. By continuing to make instruments under the Biosecurity Act which are exempt from disallowance, parliament's constitutional role as the primary institution responsible for making law is undermined. The committee has been raising this issue since the beginning of the pandemic but has not received a sufficient response to the concerns it has raised. The committee has continually been advised that instruments made under the Biosecurity Act should not be subject to parliamentary oversight as this would undermine the government's ability to take urgent action to manage the threat to Australia posed by this pandemic. The committee appreciates that, during an emergency, it is necessary for governments to take urgent and decisive action. However, parliament must also have effective oversight of these critical decisions and retain the ability to scrutinise the actions of government. On 18 November, the government finally tabled its responses to the committee's interim and final reports for the inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. These government responses were tabled nearly 12 months after the committee's interim report was tabled in December last year. The committee is insulted—I repeat, insulted—by the brevity and the lack of real consideration included in these responses. The committee has been engaging constructively with the government for over two years in these matters yet there has been little to no shift in the attitude of the government. The responses do not give due consideration to the Senate's unanimous support for the recent changes to the committee's standing orders, which provided for the scrutiny of exempt instruments, or the senate's view that delegated legislation should be subject to disallowance and sunsetting to permit appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and oversight unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of the 18 recommendations made in the interim report, the government has only agreed with one, related to the importance of parliamentary sittings in facilitating parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation in times of emergency. The committee is deeply concerned that the government has advised that it does not support any of the committee's recommendations related to providing that instruments made under the Biosecurity Act be made subject to disallowance. The response makes several arguments in justifying why it is appropriate for instruments made under the Biosecurity Act to remain exempt from disallowance. However, each of these arguments has been previously found deficient by the committee. In the first instance, the response argues that governments around the world have taken unprecedented steps to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that there is a time-limited opportunity to interrupt the transmission of the disease and to manage human health risks. The government emphasised that it needs the ability to take urgent and decisive action, and make technically and scientifically based decisions to reduce the potential number of cases and deaths in Australia and, subsequently, the burden on the Australian health system. However, the committee has consistently made the point that disallowable status of delegated legislation does not prevent the government from acting quickly and decisively, as it does not impede the immediate commencement and enforceability of an instrument. In addition, COVID-19 delegated legislation in comparable overseas jurisdictions has largely been subject to parliamentary scrutiny procedure. The government also argues that the current framework under the Biosecurity Act includes controls on the making of delegated legislation, and that, in the case of an emergency determination, the delegated legislation can only operate for a limited period, being the duration of the biosecurity emergency period or human biosecurity emergency period. The committee considers this argument is flawed, as the duration of the human biosecurity emergency period is itself determined through an instrument which is exempt from disallowance. In addition, any extension of the emergency period is also exempt from disallowance and there is no limit on the number of times it can be extended. The government response noted that the deliberate decision by the parliament not to make specified delegated legislation disallowable reflects the urgency required for such measures and the need to have certainty in the application of such measures to protect the Australian community from exposure to biosecurity risks. However, the biosecurity bill was only debated for approximately five hours in each house, and the focus of this debate was not related to those human biosecurity provisions which are now the subject of such significant scrutiny. The response also suggests that if disallowance was available, it would undermine certainty, as people could not be sure that the measures would not be disallowed during the disallowance period. This argument falls down as it is well-established that the instances of the disallowance procedure resulting in disallowance by the parliament are very low. Senators, as elected representatives, would be well aware of any impact that disallowance would have and would consider such matters as part of their deliberations. The committee considers that the possibility the Senate would disallow an instrument that would put at risk human health or undermine Australia's agricultural sector is so remote as to be fanciful. Instead, the committee considers that the disallowance process is an opportunity to work in a constructive manner with the executive to enhance delegated legislation to ensure that it operates and functions within the boundaries placed on it by parliament. In relation to instruments made under the Biosecurity Act, the committee considers that the disallowance process is apt to facilitate appropriate debate and scrutiny of the use of emergency powers and would operate to ensure that such powers are not misused. Finally, the government response points out that there are other accountability mechanisms in place to ensure such measures are appropriate and necessary, including Senate estimates, questions on notice and the Select Committee on COVID-19. Although these accountability mechanisms do exist, I emphasise that our system of representative democracy requires elected representatives to have an opportunity to scrutinise and, if necessary, repeal executive-made law. Similarly, in its response to the final inquiry report, the government did not agree to any of the 11 recommendations made by the committee. It appears that the government has largely delayed considering the substantive concerns raised by the committee in relation to the disallowance framework until the upcoming statutory Review of the Legislation Act. In conclusion, the committee considered that arguments against making delegated legislation disallowable must be balanced with the need to ensure adequate checks and balances on limitations to the personal rights and liberties of individuals. The committee maintains that the government should consider amending sections 476 and 477 of the Biosecurity Act, as set out in the monitor, to provide that any further future extensions to the human biosecurity emergency period and determinations setting out emergency requirements will be subject to disallowance. The committee reiterates that if the government is not amenable to moving such amendments it may consider moving its own amendments to the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021 to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight. With these comments I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 16 of 2021 to the Senate. 16:16 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I would like to speak in support of the remarks of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who is chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. I emphasise to the chamber: this is a committee that operates on a bipartisan basis. In my direct experience it has demonstrated a commitment to working through issues carefully and in a considered way. There has been—along with the other scrutiny committees of this chamber—a renewed emphasis on providing proper transparency and accountability to the work of this parliament through this committee's leadership. I can draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that the committee, after careful study and review—there have been a number of inquiries, changes to the standing orders and a number of mechanisms put in place to engage the executive on these questions—has advanced a bipartisan proposition that the biosecurity legislation should be amended by this chamber. There is a particular bill coming up, the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill, that will provide the opportunity for that matter to be prosecuted. These are the simple facts: from April last year there have been—I've mentioned figures of this type before—some 591 decrees issued around biosecurity and the Biosecurity Act. In particular, because of the nature of the act, under sections 477 and 476 there is a set of circumstances where this act overrides all other law in the Commonwealth. It has the effect of being able to change all other law in Australia. You might question how it could be that such legislation was put in place? As Senator Fierravanti-Wells has pointed out, we did so after only five hours of discussion in this chamber back in 2015, in circumstances where the word 'pandemic' wasn't used. It was a bill we were led to believe was about flora and fauna, not about changing the law—any law—should a minister decree it. As I have outlined, there have been some 591 occasions where decrees have been issued, most of which are not able to be amended or effected through this chamber through a disallowable instrument. It strikes me that we have to emphasise that it's not about the right of government to act in an urgent way—and committee deliberations have always emphasised the fact that governments should have the right to act, particularly in terms of national health emergencies—but that any government's actions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That's the substance of this conversation: should a government's actions in times of emergency be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? It goes further than the actions of this parliament. These measures have been replicated in every other parliament across the Commonwealth—all the state parliaments. And while people are very anxious about what happens in the state parliaments, at least in the state of Victoria there is a requirement for parliamentary approval for an extension of a state of emergency. That does not occur here. It has now happened six times, effectively by the issuing of a press release by the Governor-General. These are measures that have the capacity to override, for instance, the telecommunications laws in this country, to track people using mobile phone towers. The next bill we'll see has the capacity to forcibly take body samples from people, infringing in the most basic way on civil liberties that we have expected to be upheld in this country and never questioned. There has been the issue about the right of travel and various other things. It may well be these matters are necessary in times of emergency. The question remains: should not the parliament make a judgement as to how long they should continue and under what circumstances they continue? The proposition that's put is that ruling by decree is right because there are scientific and technical matters that we're all too stupid to understand—that's the inference that has been put to us—in circumstances whereby the balance between the technical and scientific issues invariably involves the question about restrictions on liberty. There's always a crossover. The question should legitimately be asked: 'Is that crossover appropriate in the circumstances, and does it continue to be appropriate in the circumstances?' The other argument that is put is about how business needs certainty. Our largest trading partner, the People's Republic of China, does not provide the certainty that many people speak of, yet there doesn't seem to be any shortage of people wanting to do trade where the People's Republic of China. The idea that business is somehow or another so phased by the prospect that parliamentary democracy should impinge upon their right to trade strikes me as fallacious. What this is about is providing certainty for public servants to provide their decisions without parliamentary scrutiny. Then there's the argument about whether or not there was a deliberative act by the parliament in setting these mechanisms in train. Clearly, that did not happen, yet it is presented to us as if it did happen. This is part of this regime. We now have a situation where the reports have come down from the committee, the government has responded in a completely contemptuous way once again, saying: 'We don't have to deal with these matters. We can continue on because it's custom and practice for us to act in this way.' We have a situation where delegated legislation 30 years ago was occurring about 800 times a year and now it's up to 1,500 or 1,600 times a year, doubling over that period. This is increasingly becoming a major problem, because we have allowed it to become a major problem. Given that the overseas experience has been that we should have proper transparency and accountability, particularly in times of emergency—particularly in those circumstances—it strikes me that the recommendations of this committee are entitled to be supported. I'll be urging the chamber to do so, particularly given that these recommendations have been presented on all occasions in a bipartisan manner and it now seems that there is—from what I see in a media report—an attempt by some elements of the government to, essentially, maintain a control mechanism, not an engagement mechanism where there would be proper discussion about making sure that the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy are actually upheld. BUDGET -1 BUDGET Consideration By Estimates Committees -1 16:26 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates: Additional estimates 2020-21— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 23 June and 23 November 2021—Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Budget estimates 2021-22— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 13 July and 23 November 2021— Defence portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Budget estimates 2021-22 (Supplementary)— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information. COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee -1 Additional Information -1 16:26 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Senator Kitching, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into funding for public research into foreign policy issues. Human Rights Committee -1 Report -1 16:26 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report:report 14 of 2021. BILLS -1 BILLS Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021 -1

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021

Report from Committee -1 16:26 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021 -1

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Report from Committee -1 16:26 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee -1 Report -1 16:27 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the capability of the Australian Public Service, together with accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This is a substantial report. It describes the deterioration of public service capability under this government. It builds upon the good work that David Thodey did in his independent report on public service capability, but it is indeed a critical report of the government's performance in implementing that review. The report, titled APS Inc: undermining public sector capability and performance:the current capability of the Australian Public Service, is not simply about capability in the Public Service, the expansion of casual labour hire contracting to government departments or the routine outsourcing of critical policy advice to consulting firms; the report describes an industry of outsourcing and sleazy Canberra deals. It's an industry that reaps billions of taxpayer dollars and hides its profits in offshore bank accounts but delivers an inferior service for taxpayers and undermines public sector capability. It's an industry that relies upon opaque contracts and no accountability to the Australian public or to the parliament. It's an industry that redirects taxpayer money that should serve the public interest and hands it to rent-seekers and ticket clippers. It's an industry that's politicised the very institutions that underpin our democratic system. It's government by management consultants, for management consultants. There is a giant transparency deficit here: billions of dollars going to labour hire companies, ICT companies and consultancy companies, but no measurement; and tens of thousands of workers—a shadow workforce—with thousands under opaque contracts, completely unmanageable and ungovernable. This report surveys the damage left by eight years of this toxic vision of the country, the logical outcome of privatisation ideology, hostility to the independence of the Public Service and hostility to public servants themselves. It describes the most absurd excesses of APS Inc.—the billions wasted, the services gutted, the institutions that have been undermined. But it also finds some sources of hope. It finds that APS staff are diligent and mobilised by their vision of public service. It finds that labour hire workers are skilled and capable, although their contingency and uncertainty has left them afraid and impoverished, in many cases, for year after year after year. And it finds that agency heads, for the most part, are committed to the Public Service but, of course, infantilised by the government's ASL cap. It outlines a comprehensive plan to build on those sources of hope to redirect public resources into public institutions and to create thousands of good jobs. But, to build that future, APS Inc. must be dismantled. The four agencies that have the highest rate of labour hire contracting are the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Services Australia, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, and the National Disability Insurance Agency. It's no coincidence that the service failures in those departments have generated public scandal. There is the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. There is the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. There has been the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and there should be a royal commission into the robodebt scandal. The situation at the Department of Veterans' Affairs deserves particular focus. It's a case study in the impact of labour hire, outsourcing and external consultants undermining something that really matters. You see, Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells, after 2015, as veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan deployments were returning from their service, they should have returned full of optimism and hope into good jobs and a department that was able to look after them. However, the federal government's ASL cap, managed by the now Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, meant that the department could not hire any more public servants to deal with this increasing case load—and so the Department of Veterans' Affairs became the largest user of labour hire contracts in the Australian Public Service. At its height, in 2019-20, 41.6 per cent of the department's workforce was external, including over 50 per cent of its frontline claims-processing staff. That is entirely unacceptable. That year, the department signed contracts with 46 separate labour hire providers, totalling over $84 million. That outsourcing has coincided with a blowout in waiting times for processing liability claims. And it has been a disaster. Veterans are dying waiting for their claims to be processed. Their families, their friends and the Australian public deserve an answer. And what has the new minister for this department done? He has commissioned another McKinsey report. You couldn't make it up: the department is paying McKinsey & Company to review why the claims processing times have blown out! Minister Gee, there is a report. It's here, and it's free. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the extraordinary efforts that those workers, both APS and labour hire, have made to help veterans receive the benefits that they deserve. This failure is not yours. It is a failure of this government, who have put an unfair burden on you and your department and your colleagues. And, to the veteran community who rely upon DVA to do its job: you deserve better than this. The recommendations for government to act on are clear. There are 36 recommendations. This builds on the Thodey report and should, if these recommendations are adopted, rebuild a public service with the capability that is required—that can deliver the frank and fearless advice that is important to the functioning of our democracy and that can act with independence and integrity. The report recommends doing this in three ways. Firstly, turn off the tap. Identify where the outsourcing is happening, limit it to situations of last resort, make contracts public, and cap the money spent on labour hire by Commonwealth agencies. Two, start investing in the skills and the capability of the APS. Establish an internal consultancy hub to provide policy expertise and advice to APS departments and agencies and to oversee the rebuilding of policy expertise within agencies so it's not always contracted out to consultancy hubs. It's a good idea. In fact, Mr Johnson in the United Kingdom is doing exactly that. Develop and fund, finally, a whole-of-government ICT blueprint. The government has failed utterly to resolve its problems in ICT capability. Create an employment framework that rewards and encourages talent and expand the APS graduate program. Thirdly, restore the dignity of the Australian Public Service. Abolish the ASL cap. Allow management by department secretaries and agency heads of their budget envelope. Allow them to determine what is value for money and what is in the public interest and to be accountable for it. Stop the ideological restrictions on workplace bargaining. These measures are savings measures. They'll redirect taxpayer money instead to building capability, not trashing capability. They'll create thousands of good, stable public sector jobs, many of them in regional areas. They'll improve services and lift confidence in public administration. I repeat: these measures are savings measures. There is a substantial amount of the billions of dollars, the rivers of gold, that are going to these companies that could and should be saved by government to deliver a better service. I want to thank the fellow members of my committee, as well as the tireless secretariat, who themselves represent the highest ideals of public service. I want to thank all of those people and organisations that made submissions and participated in the discussions. Finally, the committee requested staffing profile information from agencies across every portfolio. Unfortunately, three departments didn't respond to this request and have not provided an explanation. With no surprise I report to the Senate that they were the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. That result, indeed, is a reflection of the politicisation of the upper echelons of the APS. 16:37 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to make a small contribution to the debate on the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report APS Inc: undermining public sector capability and performance. I think it's a very good report. It has a lot of good work done by the committee and a lot of really sensible recommendations. I congratulate the chair in relation to that. My only criticism of the report is in chapter 8, where the committee gives a mild impression of the politicisation of the APS. That is true, but it is worth mentioning that at the very top of the Public Service—I'll go one step further—is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has driven throughout this entire government and throughout the entire Public Service a culture of secrecy and a culture of compliance with political direction—or else. We've seen that in things like national cabinet, the wrapping of any adverse reports about what's happened between government and the Public Service in cabinet and, more particularly, the governance committee of cabinet, which is the dirty little secrets committee of the federal cabinet where they go and hide all of the trash and all of the dirty laundry using—in fact, abusing—cabinet processes to do so. I foreshadow that I am going to move an amendment to the COAG bill to make it very clear that matters that deal with corruption, misfeasance, misuse of public funds and those sorts of activities ought to be excluded from any exemption in relation to cabinet so that they can't be hidden away for 20 years. We also see that throughout estimates, where officials incorrectly characterise things as being cabinet in confidence. They claim cabinet confidentiality about anything they provide to a minister that informs them for going into cabinet, which is actually incorrect. Cabinet submissions—that is, documents specifically brought into existence for submission to cabinet—are entitled to the confidentiality associated with cabinet, but ministerial briefs are not. Yet time and time again we see officials making cabinet-in-confidence claims or suggesting that they will get a public interest immunity claim from a minister in relation to that. That secrecy is driven from the very top. Then we have a situation where even when the secrecy objectives of the government are overturned by someone like Justice White, when he dealt with the national cabinet, PM&C sit around in a corner and work out what they're going to do: put a bill into a parliament, the COAG bill—a completely ill-thought-through bill, having lost a case. I can tell you that Justice White was scathing of the Commonwealth and of PM&C, in respect of how they handled the AAT matter—not even providing primary evidence, just secondary evidence. Indeed, Mr Gaetjens and Ms McGregor provided false information to the AAT. It turned out that the affidavits that Ms McGregor submitted to the AAT were in fact erroneous, mistaken, wrong. Mr Gaetjens was accused by Justice White of putting down evidence that simply made assumptions and was opinion that led to the conclusions that were actually being adjudicated by Justice White. It was a disgraceful litigation by the Commonwealth. That's the premier department inside the government—the premier department of the Public Service. We have Mr Gaetjens driving this all the way down through the chain. We have people like Angie McKenzie, who just last week said: 'I am not going to comply with the ruling of Justice White. I think I know what the statutory expression of cabinet or a committee of cabinet means.' Her view is one that is believed by PM&C to trump that of the Federal Court justice. It is just disgusting. It's awful stuff. The Attorney ought to be stepping in and weighing in behind Justice White and giving good advice to government to maintain the rule of law, to maintain the precedents and the weight that belongs to a justice—even when sitting as a deputy president of the AAT. At the very, very top of the APS we have a member of PM&C simply saying: 'I don't care what the judge said. I am going to make a decision that overrides that.' That is just shameful. That is something that is relatively new. We never would have seen that before. Going back to the point that I was going to make, and which I will conclude with: there is mild politicisation throughout the APS, unfortunately. The closer you get to the Prime Minister's office the more partisan we see public officials, and that is just a really awful place to be. We want to have officials giving proper advice—frank and fearless—and complying with the rule of law, and that doesn't appear to be happening. The problem is it's led from the very top. It is the very top of the APS. It's very shameful that that's occurring. Apart from that, I encourage senators to read the report. It's actually a very well constructed report with great recommendations. I look forward to seeing how the government responds to them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS -1 DOCUMENTS Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission -1 Consideration -1 16:45 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland While speaking to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission report for 2019-20 I take this opportunity today to express the importance of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. It does important work in this country to establish trust in charities. Many Australians donate to charities, and they want to know that they can trust that those charities are working in a way that progresses our national interests. Unfortunately, this afternoon we saw a spectacle in the Senate where the Australian Labor Party teamed up once again with the Australian Greens to back charities that are more interested in breaking the law and stopping people's jobs rather than actually support law-abiding charities in this country. There is no doubt that there are charities out there that routinely break our laws. We've seen a number of them over the past decade. We had Greenpeace here in Canberra destroy a genetically modified wheat crop. They remain on the charities list despite that law breaking. They often threaten to do it again by trespassing on property. We saw a few months ago the extinction rebellion movement spray painting this very building. Admittedly it isn't an organisation that's on the charity list but it is definitely supported and waved on by charities. What did they get away with? The ACT Magistrates Court gave them a $20 fine. You get thousands of dollars of fines for not wearing your mask, but you get only a $20 fine in this country if you spray paint our national parliament. What a joke. It is a joke that the Australian Labor Party have lined up with today. Those are their friends. I have a good mate in Rockhampton, Robert Schwarten. He is a member of the Labor Party. He was the member for Rockhampton. He is a good man, who is often despondent about where the modern Labor Party has gone. He has a piece in the Courier-Mail today. He says: 'It's all good. We've rediscovered coal. We support coal jobs now. Matt Canavan has no platform anymore.' Robert Schwarten was undermined down here in Canberra because within hours of him saying that the Labor Party now support labourers—they have discovered labourers—the Labor Party teamed up with the Australian Greens once again to put the jobs of labourers at risk and to side with the lawbreakers of this country. That's what the Labor Party are for these days. They are for those people who like to break the law. The profession of some of these charities is just breaking the law. They're supported and facilitated by willing participants from the Australian Labor Party. My message to those Australians who are working hard for this nation, earning a wage and turning up for work every day is: don't put your faith in the Australian Labor Party. They're not going to back your job. They're not going to support you. They're always going to back the Australian Greens, because that's how they get a job. The Australian Labor Party get their jobs through the Green preferences and the backroom deals with the Greens. They don't care about your job; they only care about their jobs. We're seeing an uptick in all of this lawbreaking activity. We have had green activist groups tie themselves to coal loaders and trains over the past week in Newcastle, showing gross contempt for the laws of this country and disrupting the exports that fund our nation and help us get through this pandemic. These are the people the Australian Labor Party are siding up to. We know that superglue sales are about to go through the roof. In the lead-up to the election Bunnings is going to do a great trade in superglue because all of these Greta Thunberg followers are going to be supergluing themselves to the streets, disrupting our cities and stopping law-abiding people getting to work. The Labor Party have just armed them. By voting against these laws that would have cracked down on this activity the Labor Party have effectively just given them truckloads of superglue to disrupt this country and our nation. That's what the Labor Party have done today, and it's an absolute disgrace. If you are a party that wants to be the government of this nation and that wants to establish the laws of this nation, you should be supporting those groups that back our laws and live by our laws and be opposed to those groups who break our laws. It's a pretty simple principle. It's a principle the Australian Labor Party have not lived up to today, showing that they are not a party that is ready for government, because they are still engaged in the juvenile activities of a university campus, running around with these activists who show no regard for the hardworking men and women of this nation. I thought the Australian Labor Party might have learnt their lesson, but they clearly have not. Actions speak a lot louder than words, and today the Labor Party, in action, have teamed up with the Greens. 16:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I also rise to take note of the ACNC report that Senator Canavan was just speaking to. There we have it. One of the biggest shills for the fossil fuel companies that this parliament has ever seen has just laid his cards firmly on the table. He's been very clear. He's going to back in the big planet-cooking fossil fuel corporations, the big destroyers of nature, over and above ordinary Australians who, in ever-increasing numbers, are taking matters into their own hands and bravely standing up for genuine climate action and to protect nature from those very companies that Senator Canavan is in here to represent. I salute the activists around this country that the government is taking on and trying to quash. I thank them because they are bravely putting their bodies and, in many cases, their liberty on the line not for themselves but for their children, for their grandchildren and for the large numbers of people—mostly in the global south, overwhelmingly, black- or brown-skinned and, overwhelmingly, poor—who are going to pay the highest price as our climate breaks down around us. So, whether they be activists around the country or activists around the world, I stand here—and I know I do that on behalf of my colleagues in the Greens—and say thank you for your bravery, your passion, your commitment and your foresight. I can't mention those words without reflecting on a feisty and optimistic little NGO from my home state of Tasmania: the Bob Brown Foundation. Again, we see activists—people who work with, and are associated with, the Bob Brown Foundation, including the board of that foundation, and Bob himself, a former senator and former Leader of the Australian Greens—who optimistically and in the most feisty and passionate of ways are defending nature in Tasmania and, in particular, that glorious, beautiful place, takayna/Tarkine, which is rich in Aboriginal cultural heritage and rich in biodiversity and which is scenic, spectacular and diverse. They are defending that beautiful part of Tasmania against the ravages of the mining and the logging industries. What are they facing when they do that? They are facing state and Commonwealth governments who are attacking them at an organisation level by trying to change their tax deductibility status and who are also—in cahoots, I might add, with the corporations whose profits they are trying to defend—attacking the very activists by writing legislation that puts in place mandatory sentencing laws and other draconian provisions that are designed to curtail people's right to speak out in what is supposedly a liberal democracy. This, of course, is what happens when political parties like the LNP and the ALP are in the pockets of the big corporations—those corporations that invest what is, for them, a pittance but which is, in fact, many millions of dollars a year in political donations to each of those parties. And boy—ka-ching!—does it pay off. It's the big jackpot! They get approvals for their coalmines. They get public subsidies for extracting, transporting and burning fossil fuels. They get public subsidies—for example, like in my home state of Tasmania and Senator Rice's home state of Victoria—for strip mining our native forests and destroying hundreds and thousands and, at times, millions of creatures in the process, not to mention the massive carbon emissions that they're delivering into our atmosphere as a result of those processes. I warn colleagues that the social compact is beginning to fracture, not just in this country but around the world. Governments, Labor and Liberal, can sit down with the big corporations and draft all the draconian laws that they like but they will find that over time the jails just are not big enough to hold all the brave activists who, in ever-increasing numbers, will undoubtedly put themselves at risk in order to try to stop the devastation of nature and the breakdown of our climate. I thank all of them. 16:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In a short departure from my temporary role as acting whip: I observed in the chamber the other day that the government and the Greens need each other. They feed off each other. Their political business model is to engage in this sort of rhetoric— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t Sorry to interrupt, Senator Ayres, but are you meaning to take note of the same document, No. 2? Senator AYRES 16913 I am, thank you. And thank you for helping me to get this right, procedurally— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t We're waiting, Senator McKim! Senator AYRES 16913 And no two people embody that more than Senator Canavan and Senator McKim. The truth is that playing around on the margins as a political business model and shouting at each other may work to garner the very small proportion of the vote that these characters require to continue their existence in this place, but Australians are sick of it. If they want action on climate change, if they want to reindustrialise our regions and if they want to build industrial capabilities in— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t Senator Rice, a point of order? Senator Rice 155410 I fail to see how Senator Ayres's contribution is relevant to considering the report for 2019-20 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t Senator Ayres, yes; I'm listening attentively. Senator AYRES 16913 If Senator McKim's contribution was relevant then I reckon mine is! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t I think this debate allows a degree of flexibility, Senator Ayres, but I really would like to hear your views on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission report. That would be edifying for the debate. Senator AYRES 16913 I think it would be a great contribution to charity if we stopped this debate. It probably shouldn't have started. But I will just point out in closing that if people are serious about these questions then the vote that happened today was actually a victory for the independence of Australian charities. It's a pity that Senator McKim and Senator Canavan wanted to divert the discussion into the usual thing, and that's a symbol of why people are sick of this carry-on. If they want jobs, serious action on climate change, re-industrialisation of our economies and lower power prices then they know what to do at the next election. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS -1 DOCUMENTS Consideration -1 COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Consideration -1 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS -1 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration -1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS -1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Investment -1 17:00 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland On behalf of the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, I table a ministerial statement on investment. DOCUMENTS -1 DOCUMENTS Order for the Production of Documents -1 17:00 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Scarborough-Pluto gas project. BILLS -1 BILLS Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 -1

Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021

First Reading -1 17:00 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading -1 17:01 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 (the Bill) will ensure that ordinary Australians who seek justice through the class actions system receive a fair and reasonable portion of the proceeds of successful class actions supported by a litigation funder. Australia's class action regime and litigation funding regimes must provide fair and equitable outcomes for all Australians. Yet, all too often, the current system does not meet these benchmarks. The recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court in Bolitho & Ors v Banksia Securities Limited is a stark reminder of the egregious conduct that can occur, when those who work in the legal system lose sight of the best interests of their clients. As the Victorian Supreme Court noted, such conduct corrupts the proper administration of justice. The Government has long been concerned by the returns being made by litigation funders, at the expense of class members. In 2019, the Australian Law Reform Commission found that when litigation funders were involved in a class action, the median return to plaintiffs was 51 per cent. Conversely, when a funder was not involved, the median return was 85 per cent. Last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services concluded that in many cases, litigation funders appear to be making windfall profits that are disproportionate to the costs incurred and the risks undertaken in the proceedings. These findings are echoed by judgments of the courts. Just this year, in the case of Whittenbury v Vocation Limited (in liquidation), together the lawyers and funders received nearly 50 per cent of the settlement sum. Such a state of affairs runs counter to the compensatory nature of the class actions system, which is primarily designed to vindicate the rights of class members. This Bill achieves a number of key objectives. First, the Bill requires claimants to agree in writing to be members of scheme and to be bound by the scheme's constitution. This requirement for active consent will incentivise book building by litigation funders and ensure that claimants who do not want to participate in a class action do not need to actively opt-out. Second, the Bill requires a court to approve or vary the proposed distribution of claim proceeds to ensure that members of a class action litigation funding scheme receive a fair and reasonable share. In assessing this, the Bill will establish a rebuttable presumption that a distribution would not meet this statutory threshold if more than 30 per cent of the claim proceeds, in total, is to be paid or distributed to non-members of the scheme, such as funders or lawyers. It will also require the court to consider a number of factors including the funder's commercial return compared to the reasonable costs the funder incurred for the proceedings. This provides a clear signal that the community expects that the primary purpose of the class action regime is to vindicate the rights of ordinary Australians. At the same time, the flexibility of the court to do justice in a particular matter will be preserved. Third, to assist courts in navigating the complexities of legal costs and funder commissions, the Bill ensures that courts consider the reports of independent experts and the representations of contradictors representing the interests of scheme members, when appointed. This Bill provides that the costs of these experts are borne by funders unless the court orders otherwise. Fourth, this Bill will reduce the use of common fund orders as a way for funders to expand their portion of the settlement by extending their commission rate to all members of the class, including those that have not agreed to sign a funding agreement. The Bill does not bar the court from making an order to share the costs of a proceeding amongst all class members who benefit from the action. The use of common fund orders by courts as a mechanism to amend the funding commission rate has now been superseded by the Bill's express power to vary the funding agreement. Jointly, the proposed Bill and current court powers provide a solution to the free-rider problem but at the same time preventing windfall profits to litigation funders. Finally, the Bill seeks to implement a consistent approach to class actions across all jurisdictions. This will maximise protection for class members across Australia. The Bill adopts an expansive approach seeking to extend protection to class action litigation funding schemes for class actions in any Australian court. This avoids the risk of 'forum shopping' by funders filing in courts which do not have the same level of protection for class members. This Bill and its reforms will ensure Australia's class actions system operates as originally intended whilst ensuring the viability of litigation funding agreements that provide ordinary Australians with access to justice. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS -1 MOTIONS Wages and Cost of Living -1 17:01 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics wages data show that real wages went backwards by $700 over the last year, (ii) the 2021-22 Budget reveals real wages will go backwards over the next four years, and (iii) the cost of housing, petrol, childcare and healthcare continue to rise, putting additional pressure on Australians' household budgets; and (b) agrees that the Prime Minister is out of touch with the reality that Australians face every day due to his Government's mismanagement of the economy over eight long years in government, given that real wages are going backwards while costs of living continue to rise. I rise to speak on this very important motion from Senator Gallagher today. After eight long years of this government—three terms, three prime ministers and three deputy prime ministers—Australian workers and families are asking themselves: 'What has this government done to help the cost of living over the last eight years? Are my wages going up enough to cover that rising cost of living? Are my wages going up at all under the Morrison government? Am I going to be better off under another term of this government?' The Morrison government want people thinking about the cost of living as they look to the next election. Well, we want them to be thinking about that too because you cannot think about the cost of living and how people cope without talking about wages as well. Under this government we have seen eight long years of stagnant wages, eight long years of wages not keeping up with the cost of living and eight long years where it has become harder and harder for people to make ends meet. The government have admitted in their own budget and their own projections that they will not deliver real wages growth before 2025. That is what we can expect from another term of this lot—no hope of wages going up. In fact, under this government, workers will continue to be thousands of dollars a year worse off. Research by the McKell Institute shows that the average Australian worker would be $250 a week better off under a Labor government—$254 a week, to be precise. That's over $13,000 a year for families, or $13,000 a year worse off under the Morrison government. If this government wants to run an election campaign on the cost of living then bring it on. This is the number that Australians will remember, because there is absolutely no hope of keeping up with the rising cost of everything under this government when you have $13,000 a year less in your pay packet. But low wages are not the only problem. Under the Morrison government, the cost of living is going up. The gap between how much you earn and what you're paying for everything is increasing. Prime Minister Morrison has implored voters to pick the team with the right track record at the next election. You may never hear me say this again in this chamber, but on this question he is right. We have all seen the track record of this government. In the past year, wages have gone backwards by $700 and, during the same time, petrol has gone up by $900. You do the math and see what is happening to the average household out there in our country. In my home city of Melbourne, petrol prices are 23 per cent higher than they were a year ago, and of course that gets even worse as you get out to regional Victoria and regional Australia. Under this government, petrol prices have gone up, prices in general have gone up and wages have gone down. This is the track record of the Morrison government: petrol prices skyrocketing, real wages going down, working families going backwards. It's not just petrol prices that are unaffordable under this government. Let's talk about housing costs and the housing crisis. Across this country, workers who have jobs are still not earning enough to find decent housing. One of the many aged-care workers who has bravely spoken out about their wages and the impact on the housing situation is Sherree. I've told Sherree's story a few times in this place, because it's a story that cuts pretty deep and it's a story that is echoed across our country. Sherree has worked in aged care for 20 years, but she is contracted to work only 16 hours a fortnight. While she consistently works more than that, those hours are not guaranteed and her wages are low—close to the minimum wage. That means she can't convince a real estate agent to give her a lease and she can't convince a bank to give her a home loan. She is forced to live in temporary accommodation, in a caravan park, and she has noticed that in the caravan park she lives in there are seven other aged-care workers who are providing essential service to our community and who are in exactly the same situation that she is—they are on low wages, with no prospect of a wage rise under this government, and stuck in short-hour, insecure jobs. They are locked out of secure housing because, under this government, they don't have good, secure jobs with decent wages. There is a crisis of insecure work in this country. It's a crisis that is driving wages backwards at the same time as the cost of living is going up. It's a crisis that this government not only have no plan for but don't even admit is real. The Senate Select Committee on Job Security has heard about this crisis of insecure work across the country, from workers across a range of industries and a range of regions. Workers have told us about their struggles with low wages, with not getting enough hours of work and with having to face the rising cost of living on top of that job insecurity. Of course, there are government senators serving on this committee—government senators who have sat there, as I have, and listened to the stories of these workers, who have bravely told us about what it's really like to have an insecure job with low wages. What is the government's response to this, when evidence of the crisis of insecure work is right in front of their eyes? The government senators on this committee wrote in their dissenting report that it is 'a Labor lie that job insecurity is an issue in this nation'—a Labor lie. Well, tell that to workers like Sherree who are struggling on short-hour, insecure jobs with low pay that just doesn't cover the cost of everything they need in order to provide for themselves, to make ends meet. The government persists in the idea that job insecurity is a Labor lie, even when the evidence is right in front of their eyes, even when workers are literally telling their stories about it to these government senators. This is a government that cannot admit that job insecurity even exists. This government is seriously out of touch. Even this week we've heard Morrison government ministers in the other place call issues of job insecurity in labour hire 'made-up issues'. Minister Fletcher thinks that labour hire workers getting paid less than their co-workers doing the same job is a made-up issue. Well, perhaps Minister Fletcher should have a chat to his colleagues in this chamber, Senator Canavan and Senator Small, both of whom attended the committee hearings earlier this year, where we heard from the labour hire workers who are paid less for doing the same work. We heard from Mr Chad Stokes, who lives in Rockhampton, and who has worked in the coalmining industry for 10 years, but for the past seven years he has been employed as a casual labour hire worker. Mr Stokes told our Senate committee: 'I work the same roster and shift as the permanent workers on my crew, but I have no job security, I get paid less …' Once again, even when this government come face-to-face with the stories of real workers, they still deny reality. Workers are sick of this government ignoring the real issues that they're facing. They are sick of seeing this government with its eyes shut and its fingers in its ears, pretending insecure work just doesn't exist. Workers know that if this government can't even admit that there's an issue then they can't be trusted to come up with a plan to fix it. The Morrison government have no plan to fix insecure work in this country. They have no plan to deliver good, secure jobs that pay enough for workers to afford the rising cost of living. They have no plan to ensure working families can make ends meet. Instead, they come to this place totally divided, unable to decide which way is up on any given day, let alone how to move forward. This government still have another week left in parliament for this year, so they still have a chance to come back here and tell us exactly how they plan to fix the crisis of insecure work, how they plan to fix the flat wages that Australians have been suffering under eight years of this government. How do they plan to deal with rising petrol prices? How do they plan to deal with getting wages moving? I encourage the government to come back to us next week with that plan. But on our side of the chamber, Labor will not be holding our breath, because the last eight years have shown us that this government does not have any plans to help workers in this country. In fact, this government has admitted, famously, that low wages growth is a deliberate design feature of its economic plan, and has spent the last eight years trying to weaken the power of working people, stopping them from fighting for fair wages, keeping them in insecure jobs, making it harder for workers to actually stand up for themselves and demand better. But working people in this country are fighting back. They are not taking the complete lack of action from this government lying down. They are joining their unions and taking a stand every single day, standing together and fighting for decent wages and better working conditions. In the last week or so, we have seen that in many workplaces across the country. I give a particular shout out to the workers at Country Road Group—low-paid women workers, many of them casual, who decided to stand up and win proper pay rises and fairer conditions, with no thanks to the Morrison government. Workers have taken it upon themselves to fight against low wages and job insecurity. Labor are on their side, because an Albanese Labor government will deliver a plan for more job security and better pay for working Australians. We will legislate same job, same pay, and we will make sure that there is a proper pathway for casual working into jobs that are permanent and more secure. Labor is always on the side of working people, and a Labor government will always put good, secure jobs at the heart of everything we do. There is no future for this country if we do not have a plan for good, secure jobs, and there is no plan for good, secure jobs under the Morrison government. 17:14 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to speak on Senator Gallagher's motion. It's always a pleasure to make some remarks on Australia's economic policy settings. I guess I'd have to begin by acknowledging the last contribution, which almost makes the point that the government could legislate jobs. Now, we live in a market economy where jobs are, generally, created by the private economy based on investment. I think maybe one in 10 jobs in Australia is located somewhere in the public sector, so the vast bulk of the Australian nation work in the private economy. The conditions that government applies in this space are a relevant consideration. And, as much as we may like the concept of a government sitting in Canberra, in a purpose-built capital far away from the real economy, legislating jobs, it doesn't work that way. As a person who is committed to the principles of the market—but not unfettered markets, because we do believe in regulation where it is justified—I have to reflect upon what the big levers are that we would have here in Canberra to generate the likelihood of jobs growth. I don't think this is a particularly difficult exercise. We can go around and we can look at the work that has been done by various international groups, world banks and the like, on what actually determines a nation's competitive position—given that, for the past 250 years, and I imagine for the next 250 years, Australia will rely upon foreign capital. This is a country that cannot fund itself. And so, with a heavy reliance on foreign capital, we must always look at these things through the prism of where we stack up compared to other jurisdictions. I know there are mixed views about these things, but I think we have to look at the reliance on foreign investment going up over time as some of the most important data points here. Our tax settings, our tax complexity, our tax rates, our labour laws, the general dynamism of our policy settings, how fast we are to respond to changes—all these things are important. As a general principle, we have been committed to passing incremental tax reforms to try to incentivise the idea of private investment. It has been a subject of much consternation—before I was in this place—that there should be a more competitive tax arrangement for companies; certainly, in this parliament, lower taxes for workers have been enacted, and there is always more that we can do there. As a general principle, most people would describe the tax system as very complex, and any attempt to try to simplify the tax system is always going to be time well spent. But perhaps the area where we could do the most to improve our competitive position would be to simplify the labour laws. I generally try and avoid making too many partisan and unnecessarily political comments, but there are many contributions made in this place that have been written elsewhere and that are designed to entrench the complex labour laws because it suits particular organisations. In fact, if we didn't have complicated, convoluted labour laws, we wouldn't need to have as many people working for registered organisations. On this issue of trade unions, I think there is a very good case for trade unions to represent the interests of low-income earners, in particular—migrants and the like—but I do think that there has been too much power given to these organisations, certainly, in the law, by virtue of the complexity and, certainly, in politics, by virtue of one of the major parties being owned by that particular movement. I think that is a real problem and it has made it much harder for us to have a sensible debate about these things. The idea of a simple small-business award should be something that is easily done. Simple conditions that protect workers and could be applied across the economy could only be a good idea, but that is resisted. I think that is a real shame. So you work through these things like the tax settings, tax rates, the labour laws and then, as I said before, there is a hard-to-describe factor which I generally try and think of in terms of how dynamic your policy settings are. Parts of our economy are being massively disrupted, as we speak. Unless we're prepared to deploy more policy in the payments and the digital assets space, we're looking at the prospect of Silicon Valley and perhaps other parts of the world controlling huge parts of the economy. If you think about the idea that the major tech companies in the US, which already have enormous knowledge of us as individuals, could get into banking and could, effectively, eat the Australian payment system, you really need to think carefully about what sorts of policy settings you want to have here and how quickly you can respond to these changes. I have to say that, I think, this week in the House, there was a bill introduced which is going to offer the opportunity to people to use a corporate structure as a collective investment vehicle. This was a recommendation of Mr Mark Johnson, who performed a review of the competitive position of Australia's financial sector for the Rudd government. To their great credit, the Rudd government commissioned that review. It should haven't taken 11 years for us to enact that recommendation. If you look at a lot of the reforms that were enacted following the National Innovation and Science Agenda discussion around venture capital in particular, they occurred in three to six months. So we need to move more of our policy responses, which probably means pushing the official family a bit harder, from time to time, to the three to six months time frame rather than the 11-year time frame, because things will just move on. Of course, this motion is about wages. For people who have looked at the budget papers, it is obvious that wages growth has been sluggish in recent years. There is a small wage increase projected by the Treasury. The Treasury secretary, Dr Kennedy, has said that that will be eaten by compulsory super. That is the position. Do I think it's a good idea to allow that wage increase to be eaten by compulsory super? No, I don't. But again, there are mixed views about this. I would prefer us to have a more flexible system where people could put it into super or take it as their wage, since it is actually their money. The superannuation idea, I think, is a sound idea. It could be improved a lot. It does distort this debate considerably. Some people would argue that that is not your wages; that is something that falls out of the sky. But, for anyone who has worked in a business, particularly a small business, this is a well-established cost of employment. For people who want to pursue a wages policy discussion, you have to look at all your settings including the superannuation settings. I am very worried that home ownership is getting harder and harder for Australians, particularly for lower income Australians. I have long been an advocate of allowing people to have access to their super for a first home deposit. That is not a silver bullet. Anyone who argues it as a silver bullet is stretching the truth considerably. There are a range of factors which have led to the difficulty that many Australians face in acquiring a first home. This is an economic debate, which is a good debate to have, but access to a home is more than just an economic debate. The system we have in Australia, particularly when you look at the way people retire generally, is based around the idea that you will have a home, that you will get access to a home, because the reality is that a retirement on the pension without a home is generally going to be a very difficult retirement. For people who do have a home, being on the pension makes their retirement much more comfortable. These are always difficult things to go into, because there are great vested interests here, whether it's about making the labour laws more flexible or it's about how superannuation works, because the way that those laws work in relation to industrial relations and to retirement incomes means there are enormous sums of money at stake. I think sometimes that we could have a much better discussion if it wasn't for all the vested interests falling over themselves to give us their best view. Ultimately, if you want to talk about wages growth, you need to have policies which drive and promote private investment, because you need to have the tension in the market that will ultimately lead to there being wages growth. As an advocate of foreign investment, I think that is a really key part. We need to maintain a competitive disposition. That is critical over the long term. It has always been the case that we rely on foreign investment. I often laugh to myself when I hear people say how terrible foreign investment is, because I think that they generally don't make themselves aware of the hugely positive role that foreign investment plays in the bush. There are so many projects in regional Australia which would never have been funded by domestic interests, and to finish on my old favourite, on superannuation, we've had super for almost 30 years, and our reliance on foreign capital has gone up over that period. 17:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I think it clear that the speakers list for this motion speaks volumes about how little this parliament cares about the wages of everyday Australians. The opportunity to advance ideas on how we can improve real wages should have brought a queue of senators to the speakers list. There are only five speakers out of 76 senators. What a message that sends to Australian workers, that the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and the Labor Party don't give a toss about them. Senator Gallagher is correct in painting a bleak picture of the falling living standards of everyday Australians over the last 30 years. This, though, is where Senator Gallagher's grasp of reality comes to an end. The Australian average wage-price index rose from the early nineties until 2008 under Labor-Greens and Liberal-Nationals governments. That index fell from 2008 until the start of COVID, under Labor-Greens and Liberal-Nationals governments. The average Australian wage, however, is not the best way of checking how everyday Australians are going, as strong wage growth at the top of the public sector is masking negative real growth in the private sector. The median wage, the midpoint range of wages, is a better measure. The median wage has not increased in real terms in Australia for 30 years. Over the same period, the amount everyday Australians are spending on health care, education and housing has increased 300 per cent. If everyday Australians are feeling like they're working harder and going backwards, it's because they are. This is happening under both Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments because these parties have the same policies. Once again this week, bill after bill has been voted through on the voices, meaning that both sides of the Senate voted in support. We do not have good government as long as the Liberal-Labor duopoly—the uni-party—are in control. We need a change in parliament. We need to bring in fresh faces from the minor parties. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT -1 ADJOURNMENT Queensland: Water Infrastructure -1 17:30 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I rise to provide the Senate with an update on an infrastructure fail. This is not just your average Labor cock-up that they can sweep under the carpet, like the State Bank of Victoria— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t Senator McGrath, I would encourage you to use language that is appropriate for the chamber. Senator McGRATH 217241 I'm trying to think of a word that we should use in polite company to describe the litany of failures, the cacophony of failures, that exist in the lexicon of Labor's history of just stuffing things up. I want to talk about the biggest failure, the worst infrastructure fail—it's eye-watering—and that is Paradise Dam in Queensland. The good news is that Paradise Dam is full. In fact the dam is at 102 per cent capacity, which is brilliant. That's 173,940 megalitres of water. Hallelujah! I know this has been welcomed by the irrigators in the broader Wide Bay and Burnett region, but it is an unfortunate case of what could have been. For context, the dam's capacity prior to Queensland Labor permanently reducing the height of its wall was 300,000 megalitres. We know that Labor just aren't very good at doing anything, really. You wouldn't trust them with the toaster or the remote control, but, when they get near building infrastructure, they are spectacularly incompetent. State Labor in Queensland have been there for a very long time and my party have not won elections. That is unfortunate for the future of my state. What that means is that. when it comes to building infrastructure like dams, state Labor don't do anything, because they need to be, effectively, in a coalition with the Greens; they can only win with those crypto-Marxists who sit at the bottom of the garden. The Greens don't like dams. The Greens don't really understand how plants and trees and crops grow. You need water, and you need dams for that to happen. Because of this bizarre arrangement between Labor and the Greens, no dams have been built. In fact, the last dam was Paradise Dam built by state Labor, so you'd think we'd give them at least a golf clap for that. But, no—they really, really, really messed it up totally. They've had to take down the dam wall effectively, which means an economic neutron bomb has gone off over the broader Wide Bay and Burnett area, because irrigators have not been able to get a reliable water supply from this dam. Indeed, their water supply, until the rain came, was an allocation of only 22 per cent. The response of the relevant state Labor minister to this was, 'People should pray for rain.' It is insulting to those who believe in a deity to suggest that the economic future of Queensland is going to be based on the scriptures rather than on the state government understanding that they need to build infrastructure to ensure that the state moves forward. Tom Marland from Marland Law in Bundaberg has made sure that the people of Wide Bay-Burnett have a legal case. He is taking a class action to take the fight to state Labor and stand up for those irrigators who have been let down by state Labor. In other dam news, a few weeks ago I went to the broader site of the proposed Urannah Dam project. It's something that Bowen River Utilities is proposing to build. For you southerners, it's roughly between Collinsville, Proserpine and Mackay. It's going to be so important. There'll be a hydroelectricity capacity to it. There's going to be water for the mining industry and water for crops. Earlier this year, the Deputy Prime Minister announced additional federal funding to complete the business, environmental and feasibility studies for the Urannah Dam project. This project is a great example of what the Liberal and National parties want to do in terms of making sure we have water projects in Queensland. Constitutionally we can't do it; we need state Labor to come onboard, but I refer you to my earlier comments about their relationship with the Greens and why this probably isn't going to happen. It's because federal Labor don't like dams. The LNP candidate for Dawson, Andrew Wilcox, who is the mayor of the Whitsundays, has committed to support, and fight for, this project. Andrew Wilcox is a third-generation Bowen farmer who understands this project is going to deliver jobs, is going to deliver water security and is going to grow the economy in North Queensland. We're about delivering, whereas Labor are just about talking and they are not even good at doing that. (Time expired) Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission -1 17:35 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise to pay my respects and show my support for the charities and not-for-profit sectors that have spent so many years being beaten and harassed by so many successive Liberal-National governments. I commend Senator Patrick and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation for pursuing disallowance motions on the disgraceful amendments the government posed to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. I commend this chamber, or at least most of it, for supporting the disallowance and stopping this unconscionable move to silence the sector. Our not-for-profits and charities play a vital role in our society. They provide an enormous range of critical services to our community, including advocacy and community action. I spent 20 years working in the community sector, so I've seen firsthand how important the advocacy role of this sector is. They see what's happening on the ground: the impact of government policy and the impact of changes in our society. They see what's working and they see what's not. They are perfectly placed to undertake advocacy work and to fight for better outcomes for our communities, even if that shines a light on eight long years of cuts imposed by this current Morrison-Joyce government and shines a light on the government's ideological attacks on this sector. Charities make an active and important contribution to our society through joining the public debate and making their voices heard on issues of importance. Our national discourse would be so much poorer without them. Prime Minister Morrison and his party talk a big game about supporting people's freedoms. But, as usual, they only want to support the freedoms of some people. A huge number of organisations, including some of Australia's most well-known and respected organisations, have spoken out against the changes that have most recently been put to the ACNC, including ACOSS, First Nations legal services, St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, the Fred Hollows Foundation and many, many more. Joe Zabar, the former deputy CEO of Catholic Services Australia, warned that Catholic charities will face an action for participating in the annual Palm Sunday refugee rally. I wonder how that interfaces with the religious freedom bill introduced in the House of Reps by Mr Morrison this morning? Kasy Chambers, the executive director of Anglicare was quoted in the Financial Review as saying, of the regulations: 'They are not just an attack on charities. They are an attack on democracy.' These regulations have also faced unprecedented criticism from the Senate's oversight mechanism, the bipartisan Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. As a new member of that committee I've seen the effort that goes into working with ministers to iron out issues before recommending that a regulation be entirely struck out. This is not a step taken lightly by that committee. Therefore, it should carry a damn sight more weight than it has in this current debate. In particular, the committee expressed concern that there were no limits or guidelines applied to the commissioner's power to take action. That power could have been exercised merely on a perceived likelihood that an organisation was going to do something. This is enormously subjective, granting huge discretion to a government-appointed commissioner to take action against these organisations without the need to follow any guidelines or meet any threshold. These regulations are not the first attack on the not-for-profit and charity sector. In fact, this government has been waging war on this sector for eight long years. John Howard tried to crush and silence them. Tony Abbott tried to abolish the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and, in 2017, the Turnbull government appointed Gary Johns, a man with a history of attacking charities like Beyond Blue, to run a charities watchdog. Now the Morrison government is trying to attack the right of charities and not-for-profits to take public action on issues of significant importance to them. I proudly join with my Labor colleagues in backing the charities and not-for-profits sector. We must stand against these ongoing, relentless and outrageous attacks on democracy. (Time expired) South Australia: Water -1 17:40 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise tonight to speak about the Eyre Peninsula desal plant saga. I have talked about this in the chamber, so I'll just give the chamber a brief update. Back in 2008, the South Australian government recognised that there was a water security problem on the Eyre Peninsula, and one of the solutions to that water security issue was a desal plant. As so often happens, an announcement was made and nothing happened for well over a decade. A couple of years ago, the state government allocated $99 million to put the desal plant at a place called Sleaford, to the west of Port Lincoln. Unfortunately, that particular location has proven difficult from a technical and engineering perspective. As a result, the $99 million that was allocated goes nowhere near the cost required to establish the desal plant. Earlier in the year, I FOI-ed a report that had been prepared on the Uley South Basin, which is where Port Lincoln and the Lower Eyre Peninsula get a lot of their water from. That report basically says that we've been taking between 3,000 million and 6,000 million litres of water out of the Uley South Basin and it's not sustainable. That's left us in a place where we've got an emergency. SA Water, in response to that emergency, have just allocated Proper Bay and Boston Bay. As anyone who's been to Port Lincoln would know, when you look out from the foreshores at Port Lincoln you're looking out onto Boston Bay. One of the things you see about Boston Bay is that it actually looks like a lake because there's land just about everywhere you look, because of the islands. It's an area that doesn't circulate water very much, so it's not a good place to put a desal plant and, indeed, it interferes with important fishing industries in Port Lincoln. What's the remedy for this? It can't go there. It cannot be allowed to go there. But SA Water are snookered because there's no more money being allocated by the state government to solve the problem. In the last fortnight, I wrote to the finance minister and said that we need to approach this not as an emergency but as a vision for the Eyre Peninsula. When it comes to putting a desal plant in the right location, we need a vision that looks to the future, that looks 50 years ahead. We need to look to the mining industry, the graphite industry, the agriculture that's on the Eyre Peninsula, the space industry and, of course, the communities. Water is the lifeblood of many communities and many industries, and we need to think about that as we think about the future of the Eyre Peninsula. I go back to the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline, which was established back in the 1940s—between 1940 and 1944—and cost somewhere in the order of $250 million, funded by the federal government. It was a vision without which we would not have places like Whyalla and we wouldn't have water running through the top of the Eyre Peninsula. What's required here is a vision, and that will require federal assistance. The people of Port Lincoln are at their democratic peak in terms of power, because we're four months away from a state election and six months away from a federal election. But do you know what the state government have done? In response to a well-organised protest in Port Lincoln, the state government have said: 'You've got to stop. Let's shift the decision a year from now so we can reconsider the data.' But really we know how it works in politics. That's a ploy. The state government are shifting the decision point to after the election. The people of the Lower Eyre Peninsula need to be absolutely aware that that is what this is: a political ploy. We need to get an announcement out of the South Australian government that says that the desal plant will not be in Boston Bay. We need that announcement prior to the state election or, simple, you do not vote for the state Liberal Party, and you do not vote for the federal Liberal Party in the seat of Grey when the federal election finally arrives. Beijing Winter Olympics -1 17:45 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania Three months ago, along with seven of my colleagues, I wrote to the Prime Minister seeking Australia's diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics. I've continued to probe this question at Senate estimates and continued to call for such a boycott publicly. Let's be clear: the hosting of an Olympics by a nation is not usually done because of the regime's love of sport. It is done because of the international prestige, the national prestige and the economic benefits that flow. We see the beneficial impacts that hosting an Olympics can have for a dictatorship. The world saw that in 1936, when the national socialist dictatorship benefited by way of domestic and international propaganda. The world had come to this dictatorship. They were able to sell themselves, unfortunately, as being credible and a worthy world citizen. Beijing wants that same status in 2022. It is undeserving of that status. Which other country in the world at the moment has one million of its own people in concentration camps? Which other country currently engages in wholesale religious persecution? It doesn't matter if you're Muslim, Christian, Falun Gong or Buddhist, there is religious persecution. What is more, prisoners of conscience have their organs harvested—a barbaric practice. This regime has ripped up an international agreement that it signed with the United Kingdom, sanctioned by the United Nations, in relation to the freedoms that would be enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong—just discarded like a soiled tissue, with completely no intention of abiding by its requirements. We can then talk about the Tibetans, the Mongolians and all who are having their rights denied. Then we can talk about China's acquisition of the South China Sea islands. The list goes on. This is a regime unworthy of holding the Olympic flame, unworthy of holding an Olympics. When I first made this call some time ago, it would be fair to say that it was a relatively lone voice. I'm delighted that IPAC, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, backs this call. I'm delighted that countries such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia—according to media—are now giving active consideration to such a boycott. I recall some time ago when I was a lone voice in my party room opposing the proposed extradition treaty to China. Yes, I was labelled racist. I was labelled for prejudicing Australia's trade. It was a pretty lonely time. Now not a single person would suggest that we should have an extradition treaty with China. Thankfully that is closed and will not be proceeding. Similarly, I trust and hope that, as more and more people give consideration to the unworthiness of this dictatorship that is so brutal to its own people, countries and peoples that are freedom loving and that want to see democracy and liberty flourish around the world, will take a stand and say, 'We will not punish the athletes'—let them compete, but let our world leaders, our ministers for sport, our ambassadors et cetera stay away from Beijing during the Olympics as a show of strength and disdain for this belligerent and brutal dictatorship. COVID-19: Insecure Work -1 17:50 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The COVID-19 pandemic has changed so much about our lives. It's changed the way we buy products and the way we access services. We've seen an enormous growth in deliveries. Australia Post has been delivering more than 10 million parcels each week. We've also seen incredible growth in the use of platform based services like Uber and Amazon. When consumers change their patterns of behaviour to respond to an event like this, businesses adapt their business models to meet demand. In South Australia we've seen businesses adapt, from cafes and restaurants across the state pivoting to takeaway services during lockdowns to fitness and education venues using video technologies to continue their classes from home. But in this adaptation, in this change, not everyone has been better off. Some of the global businesses benefitting most from these changes have some of the worst industrial conditions of all and have track records as employers that have failed workers—that is, if they even acknowledge an employment relationship at all. Indeed, some have been out in front championing the rapid growth of insecure work, meaning that more and more Australians have joined those without economic security, those without job security, those who are unable to plan for their families and for their futures. Our desire for convenience, as reasonable as that desire is, cannot be at any cost anymore, and the consequences of convenience cannot be without scrutiny anymore, because we know that some of these global companies have been world leaders in abusing corporate power around the world. The union representing warehouse workers, the SDA, has raised the alarm on some of this behaviour, including the appalling track record on safety standards and working conditions at Amazon. There have been reports of workers raising serious health and safety concerns, the imposition of picking quotas that are unattainable without inhuman effort, and surveillance of workers. It doesn't stop at warehousing. Amazon is continuing to ramp up its expansion into Australia, and the TWU has raised particular concerns about the introduction of Amazon's package delivery service, Flex. Flex drivers use their own vehicles to pick up packages from Amazon warehouses and distribute them to customers. The service has been introduced in major cities around Australia, and it looks set to come to my home of Adelaide soon. Because workers are using their own vehicles, there's no provision for expenses for things like fuel, insurance, parking costs and maintenance. This new model of work shifts all the burden of insecurity and uncertainty onto workers. Workers are responsible for sourcing and maintaining their work equipment and too often find it near impossible to access basic workplace protections that were fought hard for in our country. The cost of convenience, if it is allowed to continue without appropriate regulation or scrutiny, is simply becoming too high. That's exactly what the Make Amazon Pay campaign seeks to address, highlighting and fighting back against failures to provide decent, secure and safe work around the world. It is a campaign supported by over 70 organisations, including unions, non-government organisations, civil society and environmental groups, who have come together to raise their voice. During the pandemic the problems with insecure work were made crystal clear. We cannot forget the lessons we learned. Insecure work means people are forced to put turning up to work above their own health and sometimes the health of their community. It can make it extraordinarily difficult to cope with changing circumstances and impossible to plan for the future. While insecure and casual work is too often irregular and unpredictable, we know that costs in life aren't—costs like your mortgage, your bills and your children's food and clothes, whether or not you have shifts. Labor knows this. That's why we'll make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act. We'll restore the proper definition of 'casual employment' and criminalise wage theft once and for all. Australia's industrial relations system and working conditions have long been the envy of the world, fought for over a century with the blood, sweat and tears of workers and unions. The Americanisation of our workplaces and the conservative undermining of our industrial system will undo that remarkable history if it is unchecked, and we must fight it with the same strength and unity as those who came before. In this fight, and on this day, I am so proud to stand with mighty unions like the SDA and the TWU and all of the workers that they represent. Prime Minister, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 -1

Prime Minister

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021

17:55 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria In October 2018, the Prime Minister was asked what his message was for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and gender diverse students who faced being expelled from school simply for being themselves. The Prime Minister said, 'Their PM understands and is going to take action to fix it.' Yet, three years in, that very Prime Minister today introduced legislation that is actually going to entrench the ability of schools to expel LGBTIQA+ students and to sack LGBTIQA+ teachers. This is yet another example of the Prime Minister failing the Australian public: promising one thing and delivering the exact opposite. In question time today the Attorney-General denied that this was the case, but the reality is different. As legal experts outlined in an article in the Conversation this morning, a religious school that teaches that gay and lesbian couples should not be able to marry or have children would, under this legislation, then be able to discriminate against any staff or students who do not adhere to this belief. Under the statement-of-belief clause in the legislation introduced today, schools will be largely free to tell trans students that their gender identity is against the laws of God or to tell lesbian parents that they are evil for depriving their child of a father. And this legislation will override state and territory legislation that, at the moment, would outlaw such offensive speech. The Prime Minister, who, in 2018, said he was going to fix it, introduced this discriminatory legislation, this Trojan Horse of hate, into the House himself this morning. This is the result of him working to deliver for his right-wing, fundamentalist friends—rather than working to end discrimination, which is what he promised to do in 2018. A child who started high school in 2018 is going to graduate before the promised review of the Australian Law Reform Commission into discrimination in schools reports in 2023. Meanwhile, we've got the religious discrimination legislation being rushed through. Meanwhile, in the Senate today, we had an attempt by this government to set up an inquiry that was going to report at the end of January, which would have meant that any hearings as part of this inquiry would be held over the January holiday period, absolutely reducing the potential of people to be engaged in this important review of this legislation. This legislation is going to allow anyone to misgender their colleagues, to refer to trans women as 'male', on the basis that that's their religious belief. When I put this to the Attorney-General in question time today, she said, 'Oh, no—it wouldn't be legal if it was malicious.' Yet there is a note in the legislation that specifically says, 'A moderately expressed religious view that does not incite hatred or violence would not constitute vilification,' which means that the Attorney-General was wrong today. Misgendering people or telling people that their lesbian sporting mates' relationships are evil and that they will pray for them to find husbands—as long as they are being expressed in a moderate way, in 'a moderately expressed religious view'—would be completely legal. Telling a disabled person that their disability is a punishment from God would be legal. Telling a single mother that they are doing the work of the devil for denying their child a father would be legal. The Prime Minister is trumpeting this legislation to deliver on his promises to his far-right-wing mates and to engage in culture wars, to distract us from the fact that he has done absolutely nothing to help struggling Australians who have been living through two years of pandemic. He has done absolutely nothing to support people who are out of work and people doing it tough, struggling to get by on totally inadequate income support—let alone done nothing to address our climate crisis. The Greens will be opposing this discriminatory legislation, this Trojan Horse of hate. We support protecting people of faith from being discriminated against, but this bill does much more than that. This bill is increasing discrimination. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 18 : 00