2022-09-05 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 5 September 2022

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 10:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered today at the time for private senators' bills: No. 18, Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, and No. 14, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022—second reading speeches only before the Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 1

Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 10:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 and I acknowledge the work of my House colleagues Alicia Payne and Luke Gosling in bringing this private member's bill into the parliament. As a territorian I support this bill—and I want to be clear about what this debate is about. Right now, hundreds of thousands of Australians have fewer democratic rights because of their postcode. Because they live, work and raise their families in a territory, they have fewer rights. That decision was made for them by this parliament 25 years ago, when the Andrews bill became law, preventing the ACT and Northern Territory legislatures from considering or debating laws relating to voluntary assisted dying. In doing so, that legislation restricted the rights of territory citizens by placing restrictions on the autonomy of their democratically elected legislatures. But it has been a quarter of a century since that decision was made and times have changed. Every state has now considered and debated laws on this issue: Victoria in 2017, Western Australia in 2019, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland in 2021, and New South Wales earlier this year. All the bill before us today does is allow the ACT and the Northern Territory that same right. It does not compel their parliaments to legislate on this issue; it simply restores their right to do so—their right to legislate in their own terms, in their own words and on behalf of their own citizens on the issue of voluntary assisted dying. It removes the constraint on the legislative authority of those democratically elected parliaments, which does not exist anywhere else in Australia. I understand that many of my colleagues may be personally opposed to the issue of voluntary assisted dying, and I acknowledge within my own community that there are a diversity of views. But this bill is not about that; it's about whether every Australian, regardless of where they live, should have the same right to self-determination. The territory parliaments are mature parliaments. They run hospitals, build schools, design transport networks, deliver emergency services, shape cities and manage multibillion-dollar economies, and we have seen over the last two years they've led the pandemic response. The people they represent deserve the same right to self-determination as every other Australian. Now, this is not the first time I have spoken in this place to support a bill on territory rights, nor the first time that I've campaigned to get this done. It's been a long journey, and for more than a decade I have fought to end this discrimination against Canberrans. Ten years ago as Chief Minister I made a submission on behalf of my government for a review of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, arguing that the Andrews bill was a constraint on the ACT's legislative power, that it should be removed and that its inclusion was an unnecessary constraint on ACT policy choice, a constraint that was not possible in the states. In 2014 I continued my campaign as Chief Minister, writing to the federal parliamentary Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to argue that the Andrews bill creates a differential democratic right between citizens in the states and territories and that repealing the legislation would ensure that all Australians were treated equally before their parliaments. After arriving here in the Senate in 2015 I got straight to work on building support in this building to get it done. In 2016 I co-sponsored with former Greens Senator Di Natale the Restoring Territory Rights (Dying with Dignity) Bill, which would have repealed the Andrews bill and dealt with the issue. Unfortunately that bill was not allowed to come to a vote by the government of the day. I continued trying the same year and again in 2017, supporting former independent Senator Leyonhjelm's Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill, working across the aisle to get it passed. That bill came to a vote a year later in 2018 and was narrowly lost by just two votes. That brings us to where we are today, and this is our best chance to get it done. Having worked since my time as Chief Minister to do this, I'm optimistic that in 2022 we can right this wrong, because the difference this time around is that we have a Prime Minister who facilitated as a priority a debate and a vote on territory rights in the House. This was a commitment Labor made last year and one we followed through on in the very first sitting on the new parliament. It matters because before now, even if the Senate had passed a bill, previous governments wouldn't have allowed the issue to be debated in the House, a reality that had played out time and again over many years. With debate and a vote on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill facilitated in the House last month, we saw the bill pass on 3 August with an overwhelming majority of 99 votes to 37. That vote highlighted the broad support for getting this done, with Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens and independent members of parliament voting for it, including the Prime Minister, opposition leader and Nationals leader. We have seen every federal representative of the ACT support the restoration of territory rights, with my Labor colleagues Alicia Payne, Andrew Leigh and Dave Smith having long advocated and championed getting this done. We have seen every federal Labor representative of the Northern Territory support this bill, and we have seen every member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Labor, Liberal and Greens, support the removal of this legislative constraint, with the passing of a unanimous motion on 31 March in 2021. I would like to acknowledge that the ACT Minister for Human Rights, Tara Cheyne, is with us in the gallery—and my colleagues from the House; sorry, I had not seen you there. But that shows you just how important ACT representatives believe repealing this legislation is. With every state having now considered and debated legislation on voluntary assisted dying, with broad support across the House and unanimous support at federal and territory level here in Canberra, this is our best chance to get this done. As this bill begins debate in the Senate, my message to Canberrans is: I know how much this matters to you, to every one of you who have spoken and made your voice heard. Whether you are one of the thousands who signed the petition last year or whether you raised it with me in the aisles of Woolworths or at a street stall across town, whether you called, emailed or wrote to me, your advocacy on this mattered. You're not asking for much; you're just asking for the same rights as your neighbours across the border in Queanbeyan. Standing here right now, I speak on behalf of every single one of you. While this parliament made a decision 25 years ago to restrict the democratic rights of Australians living in the territories, more relevantly today it has the opportunity to end that discrimination and restore those rights, because the continuation of this discriminatory legislative constraint on the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory cannot be justified. The bill before us today would ensure that every Australian, regardless of whether they live in a state or territory, has the same democratic rights. I thank the Prime Minister for facilitating the vote in the House and giving us the best chance we've ever had to deal with this issue. Without his commitment, we would not be in this position today. As this bill is considered by the Senate, I extend an open invitation to any of my colleagues to continue discussing this bill and to share what it means to the constituents I represent. Colleagues, the House has spoken decisively on this bill. My hope is that the Senate plays its role, too; that the Senate stands up for democratic equality, and senators can do that by supporting this bill. I hope that we are able to get the majority of senators to do that, to right this wrong, and to ensure that every single Australian, no matter where you live, enjoys the same democratic rights as other Australians. 10:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to join this debate on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, a bill that, across the major parties, is quite rightly a free or conscience vote in its consideration. I rise to join Senator Gallagher in supporting this bill. The bill for me is a series of simple questions that, with the elapse of time, have only become even more straightforward. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, imposing restrictions on the legislative abilities of the territories with regard to voluntary euthanasia should never have been enacted in the first place. Entrusted and empowered as the territories are with all manner of life and death, tax and spend, lock people up or let-it-rip type powers, it was always anachronistic for the Commonwealth to have decided that the one limitation on the territories compared with the states would be on the questions of voluntary euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. For me, personally, the right to voluntary assisted dying, and to access that, has always been one that humane societies should make available, albeit with appropriate safeguards. Let's be frank: death and all that comes with it isn't pretty. We don't really like to think or talk about it, but it's unavoidable and, ultimately, the process of dying always has the same tragic ending. For some of us, we will avoid prolonged pain and loss of dignity but potentially lose the opportunity to say our farewells to loved ones or to put our affairs in order. For others, time will be on our side, but the preservation of dignity or of quality of life will not. For a comparatively fortunate few, they will face a middle ground, where farewells are possible but pain or suffering is not prolonged. Voluntary assisted dying makes the kind of pathway of avoiding prolonged pain, suffering or loss of dignity available to more who choose to access it. The question of choice is a significant and determinative factor. No person should ever feel pressure to leave this life before they're ready, but nor should people of sound mind, clear intent and genuine need be deprived of the ability to make that choice. To make that last point in the inverse, people of sound mind, clear intent and genuine need should not be forced into months or years of cruel and prolonged suffering or loss of dignity because of the judgement or attitudes of others. My body, my life, my choice—a very sound liberal philosophical approach, as long as those choices don't harm others. Many will come to this debate with personal experiences of loss and the agonising death of loved ones that inform their opinions. I respect those approaches and, like most of us, have experienced some of my own. But, for me, the fundamental principles of choice and empowerment lead me to support voluntary assisted dying. Others will come to this debate with faith-based and ethical beliefs that inform their opinion. To those colleagues: I respect your beliefs and will always defend your right to live by them but urge you not to impose them on others. However, as Senator Gallagher has rightly emphasised, this bill is not per se a voluntary assisted dying bill. It simply restores the rights of the territories to make their own laws on this matter. You don't have to agree with me or others on questions of voluntary assisted dying to support this bill. My opening thesis was that consideration of the questions relating to the support or otherwise of this bill has only become more straightforward with the passage of time. When the restrictions on the territories were passed and put into law, the Northern Territory was at the time the only jurisdiction in Australia to have enacted voluntary assisted dying laws. While I pay tribute to former Northern Territory chief minister Marshall Perron and those who supported him in the passage of those laws, I also acknowledge that, at the time, it was an act of legislative adventure by the smallest legislature in Australia. They were ahead of their times and were penalised for being so. In the intervening decades, every Australian state has enacted voluntary assisted dying laws. To maintain the restrictions on the territories put in place in 1997 would be even more anachronistic and inappropriate than was the imposition of them in the first place. Far from enabling legislative adventure by the territories, this bill we consider now will only enable the territories to play legislative catch-up. Rather than inventing their own safeguards, the territories can now adopt the best of the safeguards and approaches already legislated across all six of the Australian states, who have already legislated for voluntary assisted dying. But whether they do so, under this law, would still be a matter of choice for the ACT and the Northern Territory. This bill will not impose voluntary assisted dying legislation upon them, just the right to enact it if they choose, thereby giving their citizens the ultimate right to choose. I urge all colleagues in this place to back choice and equality of opportunity for those across the territories, for those who reside in the territories, and I urge them to support this bill. 10:17 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise today to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I want to start by acknowledging the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, and the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, who co-sponsored this bill and successfully moved it through the House. This isn't the parliament's first attempt to pass a bill of this nature. I'd also like to acknowledge the previous efforts by the member for Fenner and Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, as well as Senator Gallagher; the member for Bean, David Smith; and the many other territory representatives who have pushed this issue over the years. I'd like to thank the many Canberrans—including Nicole Robertson, Kate and the two Sams, Samuel Whitsed and Sam Delaney—who've shared their stories with me, who've spoken out with so much dignity and courage about why it's so important to them that our rights are restored. I'd like to thank the many people who've given their time, raising awareness, making the argument: Andrew Denton and Go Gentle Australia; Dying with Dignity ACT and New South Wales; Judy Dent; Marshall Perron; and the many others across the country. I've spent some time with Samuel Whitsed, a 39-year-old contemplating end-of-life choices. No 39-year-old should have to contemplate the end of their life, but Sam is. No father should be fundraising for his son's funeral, but Sam's dad is. As Sam has said to me, he knows speaking up may not allow him to get the kind of end-of-life choices people living in every one of Australia's states do, but his hope is that, by telling his own story, one day those in the ACT will. That's what courage looks like. In 1997 Kevin Andrews's private member's bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill, came into effect, immediately making the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory second-class citizens to their family, friends and neighbours living in the states. Much has changed in Australia since 1997. In those intervening decades, the states have all had discussions about voluntary assisted dying and how to craft laws that both honour the wishes of dying people to have that choice and provide options for a death with dignity, while ensuring they have rigorous safeguards in place for the most vulnerable in our communities. We have seen these discussions happen in every state across the country. We watched in 2017 as Victoria led a compassionate discussion on voluntary assisted dying, inviting clinicians, terminally ill people, disability groups, palliative care professionals and faith groups to contribute to the debate. We watched the debate in New South Wales just this year, in which parties across the spectrum came together to discuss, debate and interrogate whether a voluntary assisted dying scheme was appropriate for their state. Queensland has also had this opportunity. So have Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia. In the quarter of a century since the Andrews bill, every single state has legislated voluntary assisted dying, yet the Andrews bill still stands in the way of the territories being able, through the work of our elected representatives in our parliaments, to debate and consider voluntary assisted dying for ourselves. The people of the ACT and Northern Territory overwhelmingly want to have this same debate for ourselves. The overwhelming majority of Australians living in states believe their fellow Australians living in the territories should be able to have these debates and make our own decisions on whether to legislate and on what that legislation should look like. Yet, as we all know, we can't, which begs the question: why? Why is it that by virtue of where we live in this country, we cannot participate in these same debates on decisions? Why are we denied the democratic rights enjoyed by the states? Why are we considered less capable of having this discussion? It makes no sense to me; nor did it make sense to the framers of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 34 years ago. They understood that the people of the ACT are no different from other Australians and should be given the political franchise to consider laws for themselves as each state does. In his second reading speech, then Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Clyde Holding, said of the people of the ACT: … unlike every otherperson in this country, where a fair go is the creed by which we live, they cannot elect a member of their own community to their own government. They have no say in the decisions which affect their everday lives. What an extraordinary admission in a country so committed to democratic ideals, and why? Are these people somehow different from other Australians? Are they second class citizens in some way? … Can they not be trusted with their own destiny? The answer to all these questions is very simple. The only difference between these people and the rest of Australia is that they live in the Australian Capital Territory. Nothing separates us from the rest of Australia other than a jagged line on the map and fewer representatives in this chamber. The ACT and Northern Territory governments are expected to run their own treasuries and manage their own finances. They must run their own health and child protection systems, they collect revenue, they provide public transport, they build public infrastructure, and they face public scrutiny for their decisions and actions. They are represented on the National Cabinet and played their part in keeping their people safe through the uncertain years of the pandemic. Simply, the ACT and Northern Territory governments and legislative assemblies are expected every day to make complex, life-changing choices on behalf of their citizens. They are no less capable of having a discussion on voluntary assisted dying than every other state. I have listened respectfully and read the arguments to the contrary. In his first reading speech, the architect of the Euthanasia Laws Act stated that his bill simply reflected the national approach to voluntary assisted dying. He stated that his bill was designed to bring the Northern Territory in line with every other state and territory. Twenty-five years on, it is now the ACT and the Northern Territory that are forced to be out of step with the rest of the country. We know that, nationally, over three-quarters of people support the ACT and NT in having these decisions for themselves. I have heard it said that the territories are incapable of having these discussions as their parliaments do not have an upper house, but nor does the Queensland parliament. And why is it that it is only on this topic that this issue is raised? It's clear to me that the concern lies in the subject matter itself. The issue of territory rights was tied to voluntary assisted dying 25 years ago in the Andrews bill. I recognise that people have deeply held convictions on voluntary assisted dying. I don't discount the personal, ethical or faith based perspectives brought to this chamber by senators nor their right to view legislation through that lens. However, as legislators, it is our responsibility to unpick complexity and to set our own beliefs in the context of how we promote the equal treatment of all Australians before the law. As former ACT Chief Minister and senator for the ACT, Gary Humphries, said, 'The ACT is mature enough to have this debate for ourselves.' This is not the chamber to debate voluntary assisted dying, and no-one here is asked to do so. Senators are only being asked to allow the territories to have the debate for themselves. Just as every state has done, people will be able to contribute their perspectives and concerns on whether a scheme is established and what it looks like through their representatives in the legislative assemblies. I have confirmed with both the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the ACT Minister for Human Rights that draft legislation on this matter does not yet exist. Both territories will engage in a rigorous consultation process in the formulation of any bill, which will also be the subject of debate in the legislative assemblies. There are divergent views on this matter. These views need to be heard and considered. But that should be done in the legislative assemblies. Let me be clear: here in this place, each one of us is being asked to decide whether we believe that the people who live in the ACT, as well as those who live in the Northern Territory, deserve fewer democratic rights than their families, friends and neighbours who live in the states. Senators are being asked to consider whether the people of the ACT and Northern Territory should keep being considered second-class citizens in this Federation. Apart from my three territory colleagues in this chamber, your constituents already have the right to engage in this conversation, and have done so. Please, give us that same right. Since coming to this place, I have had many conversations with colleagues across the chamber seeking your support, and I will continue to do so. To those of you who are yet to make up your mind on this important issue, my door is open. I will welcome and seek an opportunity to speak with you. People living in the territories are not asking for anything more than what everyone else in this country already has. It is my sincere hope that this bill will pass. 10:27 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's always an honour and a privilege to speak on matters that are of such import in the community and to enter the chamber when there is clearly a very considered and respectful debate underway. This morning I was listening to a philosophy show on Radio National where presenters Waleed Aly and his co-host were talking about the strident voice of debate in the modern place and the discourse practices that are engendered by social media algorithms that lead to more outrage. I think it's very important to note that the quality and standard of this debate is moving away from that. I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I acknowledge that this is a very emotive debate and a source of tremendous suffering and anguish for many people here and many we seek to represent. I acknowledge the grief, loss and personal truth of every account by senators here who've shared their life experiences of losing someone that they love in both this debate today and in the previous debate on this matter. I certainly respect the diversity of views that have been put respectfully on the record in the course of the debate I have my own history, as others do, of grief and loss, and it's a lens that colours what I feel about this issue. We're called on in this place to combine that journey of the heart with the intellectual endeavour to interrogate the legislation that comes before us. I will endeavour to do that in my contribution. I also want to acknowledge that my contribution is formed by my faith perspective as a practising garden-variety Catholic, as I call myself. I hate to be thought of as devout because that could be a standard I'd never be able to live up to. The reality is that, as a person of faith, I do represent a range of views across that Catholic faith and also across other communities of faith that hold views about life that are at the core of what is being debated here and what will then be debated if this legislation is advanced in the two territory jurisdictions concerned. I want to make a claim for the importance of a faith perspective in this debate, and I want to use the words of the Canadian legal philosopher, Margaret Somerville: Those wanting to exclude religion from the public square have created confusion among freedom of religion, freedom for religion, and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion means the state does not impose a religion on its citizens: there is no state religion. Freedom for religion means the state does not restrict the free practice of religion by its citizens. Freedom from religion means the state excludes religion and religious voices from the public square, particularly in relation to making law and public policy. The first two freedoms are valid expressions of the doctrine of the separation of church and state. The third is not. That is why I think it's important in this particular debate, which goes to matters of life not just to state rights—these two are absolutely intertwined in this legislation—to put on the record a faith perspective and a life perspective, which I bring as a representative of that group of people in the community. This bill is about euthanasia; let's make no mistake about it. The only amendment that this bill will make is to remove the prohibition that the federal parliament made under its constitutional powers to prohibit euthanasia in the territories. I know that there have been many earnest contributions to this debate that, no doubt with good intent, call us to avert our eyes from the substantive issue at the heart of the bill. Many will say—and, indeed, have said—that this bill is just about the legislative rights of the territories, but that is only one small element of the bill. The greater, substantive part deserves consideration. Let me say clearly: history will show that this bill is about giving territories of this nation the green light to go ahead with enacting legislation that will make it legal for physicians to terminate the lives of their patients and to assist patients to take their own lives. I think a review of the contributions of those who will support the bill will show that, as much as they declare it is not so, they indeed do know that enabling state-sanctioned suicide in the ACT and the Northern Territory is, in fact, exactly what they are seeking to achieve today. Those contributions—and I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Pocock who spoke in this place just before me—herald the sort of debate which is going to advance that purpose and which is the trigger for that to happen. These two things are intertwined; they are not separate. So the substantive debate does matter, I think, in this place. The legislation that passed this parliament in the form of the Euthanasia Laws Act in 1997 was about euthanasia. That word isn't used in this new bill; it uses the lexicon of 'assisted suicide'. This bill would allow matters of life and death to be determined in unicameral parliaments where there is no house of review. I note that Senator Pocock notes that Queensland, which is unicameral, has advanced legislation. It is also a much larger state. These two territories are not seeking to become states; they will remain territories. That is in alignment with the scale of the population they have and the resources they have, with the requirement of support from the rest of the federation. So there is something unique about the Northern Territory and the ACT. I also note important remarks from colleagues and community leaders about the particular vulnerability of the First Nations people, the Indigenous people, particularly in the Northern Territory. Although I don't want to underplay the important contribution of the First Nations people here in the ACT—the land of the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people who we acknowledge every single day—so much of the population of the Northern Territory is First Nations people, the Indigenous people of the north. The impacts of this bill are unlikely to be known before the passage of this legislation. I do take on board that, if this legislation passes, as it appears it will, it's important going forward that this very important constituency, which doesn't yet have a voice to this place, is taken very much into account when the debate is considered in the Northern Territory. I think that goes to issues of resource capacity as well. It's one thing to think about what enacting voluntary assisted dying laws, or euthanasia laws, in the ACT might look like; it's an entirely different matter to look at it in the context of the Northern Territory with its very dispersed population with incredibly different levels of access to services, including health services—mental health services, physical health services and palliative care. In 2014, during the Victorian state debate, 105 of Australia's 148 palliative medicine specialists—that's 70 per cent of the profession—wrote an open letter in which they stated that euthanasia advocates actively and deliberately undermine confidence in palliative care. At the time the vote passed the Victorian parliament, Victoria had the lowest level of palliative care specialists per capita in the country. That is, in my view, very instructive and it's part of what's driven this debate. It reveals that the first state to enact legislation to allow assisted suicide was the least well served in terms of expert palliation advice and access. I think it would've been very helpful to have an inquiry at this point in time, to give some deep consideration to any shifts in the level of palliation that's available in the jurisdictions that have adopted euthanasia laws. Much has been made, very appropriately, of the pain that people have witnessed on the passing of someone they love. I don't doubt for a single moment that senators, both in this debate and in the previous debate, have authentically revealed their experiences of witnessing that pain and their own deeply personal encounters with the death of a loved one and that that informs their view in this debate. Indeed, I recall one day in the course of my own father's dying when palliation failed him as an aggressive brain tumour progressed. He was very much in pain, and we were very distressed. Seeing that sort of thing makes you question everything. But his palliation was able to be adjusted, and he continued his farewell to us with very little pain over the following weeks. He reached his 49th birthday not long before he passed. That was 35 years ago. Things do change. Things have changed. But death is ever with us. Saying goodbye to a loved one is always a fraught experience. There's no doubt amongst palliation specialists that there's been a marked improvement in the field over that time. I acknowledge the powerful contributions of many senators who have called for an increase in the level of resourcing and the enablement of ever-improving palliation practices, including quality mental health and psychological supports that ameliorate the challenge of a journey to death. In response to many claims about pain management that have been characteristic of this debate—in the public and here in the Senate—I want to make a few remarks about the claims that pain management is the most pressing reason for advancing legal assisted suicide. Just how significant is pain as a factor in the decision-making of those who actively seek suicide in jurisdictions where it's currently enabled? The most instructive piece of research I was able to locate was in the Oregon public health report of 2016. For the 1,127 patients in the state who died from ingesting a lethal dose of medication, the data revealed the real reasons for that action. Somewhat surprisingly, neither pain nor fear of pain was cited by those people who took their own lives as the main reason that they sought assisted suicide. In fact, 296 of those 1,127 people, or 26.3 per cent, indicated that pain control was a factor for them. That is not an insubstantial amount—a quarter—but, to be fair, let me put on the record that the most often cited reason for assisted suicide in the Oregon study, at 91 per cent, was the steady loss of autonomy. Being less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable was a reason cited by 89.7 per cent. For 77 per cent it was the loss of dignity that motivated their assisted suicide. Loss of control of bodily functions, such as incontinence and vomiting, was the reason cited by 46.8 per cent. It's important to note that the two reasons most cited by people who died by assisted suicide reveal that it was their feelings about their lives, their concerns about others' views of their lives, that prompted them to take action. That is really what worries me at the heart of this debate. As much as we've talked about pain, it's people feeling they are a burden, people so overwhelmed by the social mores of our time that they think that to lose some control of bodily functions is a loss of dignity. To a Catholic, the dignity of a person is fundamental, regardless of what they look like or what they can do, or how old or how infirm they are. That belief in the essence of life is actually what informs a theological position that is opposed to voluntary assisted dying. I want to put on the record, in the few moments remaining to me, a recollection of attending a public meeting in the lead-up to the now long ago 2001 federal election. Labor's Kim Beazley and our candidate for the seat at the time, Trish Moran, arrived at Kincumber High School. It was a well-attended meeting, and it was surrounded by a large number of people from the local retirement villages who had very strong views about euthanasia—and I do believe that they were really for it. When he was asked a question, Mr Beazley spoke about his experience of taking evidence in a parliamentary hearing. He spoke of a young man and his sister who had come to the inquiry and who had insisted that assisted suicide should be enabled because their mother was a perfect example of someone who was spending their inheritance on her health care, and they should have access to that. Now, Mr Beazley rightly pointed out that people who want assisted suicide and people who are arguing passionately for it here in the chamber are not motivated by that kind of intent. Nonetheless, these motivations do exist in our community, and we're wise to heed them as we make law for this country. We have to make it for all people, and we have to cover those who have malintent. Mr Beazley finished with—and these words still echo in my head—'I don't know what kind of a mother you had, but there's very little my mother wouldn't have done or given up in order for me to have a better life.' That motivation can lead to egregious practice; we are battling an epidemic of elder abuse. These are contexts that actually should be informing a decision in this debate. I also remain concerned about the message that euthanasia sends, in my view, to those suffering mental health troubles and to people who are suffering from a disability. A moment, or an extended series of moments, when you can't access services can make voluntary assisted dying seem a lot more appealing than fighting for access to services that should be your right in a country as large, as sophisticated and as successful as Australia—the 12th largest economy in the world. When you feel bad, so bad that you want to die, treatment doesn't work, you should end your own life—I think the easy movement to that can be a very dangerous thing. I'm looking at Senator Perin Davey, and I know that she cares about access to services in the regions, as I do, and that this is another layer of concern. I want to thank colleagues for their participation in this debate, and I've put my words on the record. I hope that we find a safe way through this for the Australian people. 10:42 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I want to thank Senator O'Neill for her very considered contribution to this debate. She raised a lot of very sensitive issues that are, certainly, foremost in the minds of many people when they're looking at the bill that is before us, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. A lot of people are making this bill about voluntary assisted dying, or euthanasia. Certainly, if this bill goes through, it will enable the Northern Territory and the ACT to bring on debate about voluntary assisted dying, and it may result in the passage of laws in those territories. While, yes, voluntary assisted dying might be the outcome of the passage of this bill, what this bill is actually about is what this place started in 1978 with, first, the passage of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Ten years later, that was followed up by the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. Then we also had the Norfolk Island Act in 1979. We in this place, at those times, decided that it was right and fair for the territories to be able to govern themselves. We decided that the territories should have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of their people. But then, in 1996, when people in this place saw the result of the passage of those bills, when the Northern Territory passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995, all of a sudden we decided that, no, the territories can't govern for themselves over everything; they can only govern for themselves on things that we think are appropriate for them to have self-government on. Now, I don't think you can have it both ways. We either support the territories governing and making laws for the peace, order and good government of their people, or we don't. I don't think it is fair that the territories always have it hanging over their heads that, if we don't like their laws, we'll come into this place and work against them. This bill proposes to remove the restrictions that were put in place in 1996, known as the Andrews bill. I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive issue and a personal issue for many people in this chamber, in the parliament and in the wider community. We know that there have been many attempts to repeal the Andrews bill, and, if this bill is unsuccessful today, I'm sure there will be many attempts in the future. I am not here to debate the merits of euthanasia. I am here to debate the merits of the territory leaders and the elected representatives in the territories taking their positions to their electorates, and for their right to debate in their own assemblies the merits, or otherwise, of their proposed legislation. I grew up in the ACT. In fact, I was living in the ACT when they had their first self-government elections. I remember the size of the ballot paper. It certainly made the New South Wales Senate ballot paper look quite small at the time. I remember the Party! Party! Party! party running—that was the joy the ACT had when they could finally elect, from their own, people to come together and determine rules and legislation for the peace, order and good government of their own region, of the territory. It was a joyous election, and the ACT has been governed ever since by people that they elect from their own, who come together in the ACT Legislative Assembly to debate the merits of their proposals. Why should anyone from any other jurisdiction determine that the people of the ACT and the people of the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island don't have the right to have their own elected representatives debating the merits of their own laws? In today's world there is no justifiable reason why the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or the ACT Legislative Assembly should not have the power to make laws that impact on their own citizens. Territory leaders should be able to take legislative proposals to their electorates. Their elected representatives have the right to, and, indeed must, adjudicate on issues on behalf of their electorates. It is crucially important that these people are able to have those rightful debates in their assemblies. If this bill is successful today, I implore the leaders of the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory to first take their positions to an election so that their constituents are aware of what the positions being taken forward are. I implore them to give it that time so that the people of their jurisdictions can have the right say, can vote for their elected representative knowing full well what that person's position is. Then they can have the debates in their assemblies to progress or otherwise any legislation that they wish to bring forward. But I think that is a right that the people of the territories should have. They should absolutely be able to vote for representatives based on what their positions are. They should be able to vote knowing that their representatives will then take that position forward into their assemblies and have the debates, like we are having this debate today. I don't want to dwell on the fact of the voluntary assisted dying part of the bill, because, really, to me, this bill is about the territories' rights, but I will address a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly agree with Senator O'Neill when she raises the importance of palliative care. We must do better in this country to provide palliative care for our elderly and for our terminally ill. There is a fear that, if we allow voluntary assisted dying, we will have an absolute tsunami of applications. But this is not borne out in Victoria, which was the first state to bring in voluntary assisted dying. Their legislation passed in 2017. Between June 2019, when it came into effect, and June 2021, only 836 assessments had been made. Some might say that shows that it was unnecessary, and I would say no—it shows that there are not going to be a tsunami of applications. People are not going to race forward to try and get early inheritance. People take this very, very seriously. Out of those 836 assessments, 597 permits were granted, but only 331 people actually took the medication. That is less than 40 per cent of all assessments. That goes to show that, even if you are assessed and even if you have got a permit, it doesn't necessarily mean you will follow through. But what it means is that you have the choice. You have the right and you have the option. I certainly wouldn't want to take advantage of such a law prematurely, ever, but I do think that people deserve the right to choose to live or die in dignity. I still think that the first priority should be palliative care; the first priority should be health, treatment, medication. But I also know that there are times when, for all good intentions, there is no means of prolonging someone's life, and there are certainly diseases and ailments that just cause so much pain and suffering that people want a choice. I think that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT should absolutely have the right to debate the merits or otherwise of any proposed legislation brought forward. We have certainly learnt a lot from the different models that are out there, and I am sure that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT and their leaders, their elected representatives, will take all due consideration. But they should have the right to have the debate for themselves and to then vote on the merits or otherwise of any legislation that is brought before them. I do not think it is the responsibility of us in this place. Most of us don't live in either of the territories. In fact in the Senate there are only four territory senators out of 76 of us, so I don't think the rest, 72 of us, should be telling them what they can and can't do. The territories have their legislative assemblies now. We passed that in 1978 for the Northern Territory and 1988 for the ACT, and we should let them govern. So I will be voting in support of this bill. 10:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate our party's support for the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. The coalition's decision to prevent territory governments passing assisted dying laws was always deeply cynical, inappropriate and undemocratic. The Greens opposed that measure the time, we have been consistent in supporting efforts to overturn it ever since and as a party we support this bill to overturn that move. Indeed the Greens are the only party that has a clear position to support the urgent repeal of the 1997 so-called Andrews bill, and we do this as part of a long track record of supporting territory rights. I do want to commend the different speakers in this debate for the way in which they have positioned the discussion on territory rights. I particularly commend the contribution of Senator Pocock and Senator Davey's recent contribution, frontlining the right of people in the ACT and the Northern Territory to have the same rights as citizens across this country. If citizens of the states, residents of the states, are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes then the Greens fundamentally believe that citizens of the territories must also have that right, and this should be the case for all other legislative rights that the democratically elected bodies of the ACT and the Northern Territory choose to adopt for their respective territories. Indeed this proposal should not even be controversial. For the Greens this is not a conscience vote, and we hear the discussion amongst other parties that this, because it may involve some moral issue, is descending into a conscience vote, where individual senators will choose which way they vote. The Greens see this as a matter of principle first of all about the rights of territory citizens to have the ultimate say through their elected bodies about what laws should apply to them and what rights they should have, but we also adopt it as a matter of principle when it comes to voluntary assisted dying. This is a matter again on which the Greens unite on principle, and I believe we are the only party uniting on those core principles in this debate. If people who live in states are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes then it goes without saying that those same rights need to be able to be extended to the territories if their democratically elected representatives choose to legislate so. Over the last two decades the Greens have been a key part of the work in different states and territories to deliver the right to assisted dying laws and to give people, often in unbearable pain or facing the impossible loss of self and dignity, choices and empowerment around their death. Terminally ill people in pain have a right to choose to die with dignity, provided appropriate safeguards are put in place. To the people who have been bravely advocating for access to voluntary assisted dying for themselves and their family members as part of this debate: I recognise the strength and the power of your advocacy and want to state clearly that the last years or months of your life should not be spent advocating for the right to make choices about your own life. The last years and months of your life should be focused on family, should be focused on self. But too often we've seen brave advocates spend those last months fighting with politicians for the right to die with dignity. It's time that ended. It's time the right was entrenched in the territories and the states. Indeed, regulating voluntary assisted dying has been the call of the great majority of the medical profession across the country. It provides a clear framework for doctors, nurses and healthcare workers to use when dealing with terminally ill patients who are in immense pain and who are asking for the right to choose when to end their pain and their indignity. Legislating for clear voluntary assisted dying laws provides that clarity and enables health workers and doctors to get on with doing their jobs and putting the rights and needs of their patients first. It also provides clear, unambiguous pathways to prevent what can be very serious legal consequences for the medical profession if they get the call wrong in an unregulated environment. Inbuilt protections in the schemes that have now been legislated across the country show how voluntary assisted dying can unite political debates. There are appropriate checks and balances in each state jurisdiction to ensure sound decision-making, to prevent inappropriate pressure and to prevent the kinds of highly inflated rhetorical instances that are often used in this debate by opponents of voluntary assisted dying laws, such as we've heard from some senators in their contributions. Arguments that this will be abused by gold-digging relatives have not stacked up in the experience in states around the country that have legislated for voluntary assisted dying. The move of adopting this bill would clear the path for progress on voluntary assisted dying in both territories. It's a sad tale for those families and individuals who have been seeking the help of their legislatures in the Northern Territory and the ACT since 1995. It was in 1995 that the NT became one of the first jurisdictions on the planet to legislate for assisted dying laws. Within less than two years, a political backlash saw the then Howard government support the Andrews bill and override the right of the Northern Territory to legislate. But since then—and it's been through the courage of survivors, families, patients and doctors—we finally saw laws passed in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia in I think 2019. We saw laws pass in South Australia and Queensland in 2021, and just this year we saw laws for voluntary assisted dying finally pass in New South Wales. I was grateful for the opportunity, as one of my last contributions as a member of the New South Wales parliament, to speak with my Greens colleagues in support of those New South Wales laws to finally legislate for voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales. So, every part of the Commonwealth now has these laws except the ACT and the Northern Territory, who are prevented from moving forward, from determining their own democratic future, by an offensive law, supported by this parliament, that dates back to 1997 and that we can strike off the statute books if we support this bill. Dying with Dignity describes voluntary assisted dying laws as: … legislation that enables competent adults, experiencing unrelievable suffering from a terminal or incurable illness, to receive medical assistance to end their life peacefully, at a time of their choosing. Dying with Dignity says: We need a better method of end of life care than unbearable suffering. Indeed, when I was a state MP and we were moving forward and legislating on voluntary assisted dying, I had many, many family members talk about how they lost critical months with their mum or their dad because their mum or their dad felt that they had to move forward and end their life while they were still physically capable of doing so, before their illness descended into incapacity and prevented their ability to act. They didn't want to have their family members caught up in the legal dangers of assisting the end of their life, so they lost months and months with their family members, and they died alone without help because the law forced them down that path. They had no open, clear, legislated pathway to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing with appropriate safeguards and with their family around them. This parliament is preventing the ACT and the Northern Territory legislating for voluntary assisted dying, which is causing those people, in unbearable pain and suffering, to often end their lives isolated from families and in secret. They are hiding the truth from their families and the situation is stealing those critical months and weeks from families. It's time we ended that. Opponents of these laws will say that improved palliative care is the answer. But we have been told by the profession and by family members that, yes, there is a desperate need to increase palliative care, and of course we should all unite and support that. But, tragically, there will be many cases where it will never be sufficient. There will still be cases that are deeply, deeply distressing for people in the last weeks and months of their lives, and for their families, who see this unbearable suffering, where the pain and the sheer indignity of the illness cannot be meaningfully ameliorated by palliative care. That's the pathway that's open through voluntary assisted dying laws, to give people empowerment and choice in those situations. The current situation that this bill seeks to address is where a person who lives in the ACT or the Northern Territory is in great physical suffering and approaching the end of their life. This parliament has said that they must continue to endure their suffering. They have no choice because of a cynical political decision made by this place in 1997. Your end-of-life choices should not be dictated by former minister Andrews or former prime minister John Howard. People have a right to choose and their elected representatives have the right to make laws. I'll finish with a contribution from the ACT Attorney-General, Shane Rattenbury, who said this: It's absolutely time these discriminatory restrictions were removed, and we ask the Attorneys-General of Australia to support us in this call. It is very simple: if citizens of the States are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes, citizens of the Territories should also be allowed. Residents of the Territories are being treated as second-class citizens. The imposed restriction on our ability to legislate on voluntary assisted dying is inequitable and undemocratic. Voluntary assisted dying is a deeply important issue to people in the ACT, and we should be permitted to consider this issue within our own democratically elected parliaments. I endorse the words of the ACT Attorney-General and the Greens collectively commend this bill to the House—not as a matter of conscience but as a matter of principle. 11:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. First, let me be clear that this is not a debate about voluntary assisted dying, because this is not a bill to legislate voluntary assisted dying and nor should it be. This bill is about restoring the democratic rights of territory residents: the right to self-government and the right to debate and consider their own laws on this matter in the same way that residents of every state have done. It should not be we in this chamber who take those decisions on behalf of territorians, and it's time for Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory residents to be treated equally with their state counterparts. Twenty-five years ago, the Howard government passed the Andrews bill, which significantly restricted the democratic rights of residents in the ACT and Northern Territory. The bill overturned the Northern Territory parliament's decision in 1995 to become the first jurisdiction in the world to legislate voluntary assisted dying. This decision had been debated by residents of the Northern Territory and, ultimately, had been decided by those residents through their elected representatives. It was a democratic process that was unfairly ignored by the federal parliament at the time. The Andrews bill limited the law-making powers of the territory parliaments. It removed their ability to even consider laws related to voluntary assisted dying. This bill will return those powers to these jurisdictions, giving the territories back their democratic right to debate these laws. It is absurd that the law-making powers of these jurisdictions have been restricted by this very parliament when the same is just not true for the states. The elected representatives of these territories should have the right to debate the same laws that a state parliament can, and the residents of these territories deserve the chance to have their voices heard in these debates. That's what this is really about. My home state of Victoria was the first to introduce voluntary assisted dying laws to the parliament in 2017. As my friend the Hon. Jill Hennessey said in her parliamentary speech: 'The laws are uniquely Victorian and have been developed recognising the diversity of Victorians.' This was only true because Victorian residents and their representatives had the right to participate in a debate; they had the right to participate in the discussion. They had the right to share their stories and help shape the laws that would impact their own lives, making sure that Victorian laws reflected the stories and the experiences of Victorians—Victorians like Amanda, who bravely shared her story about her father's struggle with myelofibrosis. At the time, Amanda shared how, after several years, her father's entire body was shutting down and the medication he used to slow the passage of his illness no longer worked. There was nothing left that the medical professionals could do to ease his pain and his suffering. In the end, Robin took his own life, alone. And there are the stories of Victorians like Greg, who shared his story of living with HIV and watching his life partner die in the end stages of that same disease. He spoke of the pain of nursing his partner and the fear for his own future. Amanda and Greg had the courage to share their stories and those of their loved ones in the debate about voluntary assisted dying in Victoria. Territorians should simply have that same right to share their own stories, to have their voices heard, to meet with their parliamentarians and tell them what they think, and just to have their say. For Amanda and Greg, once the debate had concluded and the law had been voted on, they were secure in the knowledge there their voices could not be shut down by the federal parliament: that Victorian stories would shape the Victorian laws about voluntary assisted dying. These laws in Victoria and in every other state allow people to make what is, of course, a deeply personal choice to relieve their suffering and die with dignity. Every death is a tragic loss, and in this parliament we should respect that the laws that give this deeply personal choice to so many people must be decided by the residents of each state and territory, not by us here in this place. I want to acknowledge Dying With Dignity Victoria for their participation in the community discussion towards the Victorian legislation. In particular, I thank Vice President Jane Morris for speaking with me about the bill before the chamber today. I want to repeat that this bill does not seek to legislate voluntary assisted dying for the territories. It seeks only to restore the voices of Australians living in these places, giving back to the people—people just like Amanda and Greg—their right to contribute to the laws which affect them. Every single state in this country has had the opportunity to debate voluntary assisted dying laws without the interference of this parliament, and we need to return the right for the ACT and Northern Territory to do the same. Acting Deputy President Reynolds, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 12 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022 12

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022

Second Reading 12 11:16 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise this morning to speak to a bill that I introduced to the Senate in the last sitting fortnight, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022. It comes hot on the heels of last week's Jobs and Skills Summit, and the only question that people need to ask themselves at the end of this contribution is: why must age pensioners and veterans wait for this initiative? You'll think it a bit of a coincidence that this bill, introduced into the Senate in the last fortnight, replicates—not completely—one of the 36 initiatives that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said deserved immediate attention on Friday afternoon. This private senator's bill is a timely, immediate solution to two challenges that are facing our country. The challenges are real, they're immediate, and they're beginning to hurt. The first of those two challenges is the rising cost of living. There is not a household in our country today that is not experiencing the devastating effect of rising cost-of-living challenges, whether it be food or petrol or interest rates. The other immediate challenge is affecting every small and medium-sized business—indeed, every large business—across our country: in every town, in every city, in every suburb. This bill will go a long way to immediately addressing cost-of-living challenges for age pensioners and veterans and go a very, very long way in meeting the labour shortage challenges being faced by small and medium-sized businesses in every community across our country. You might like to ask yourself: why, after two days of a jobs and skills summit, can Anthony Albanese, the new Prime Minister, and Jim Chalmers, the new Treasurer, have a grand bargain with big business, big unions and big government, but they can't legislate a grand bargain for age pensioners and veterans today? This bill doubles the Age and Veterans Service Pension Work Bonus Scheme, the amount that can be earned without impacting pension payments, increasing it from $300, as it currently is, to $600 per fortnight, or $1,200 a fortnight for a couple. Working pensioners will also continue to accrue the unused work bonus scheme income up to a $2,800 cap, exempting future earnings for pension income test purposes. Importantly, this bill removes disincentives for working pensioners. Age pensions are currently cancelled where a recipient's total income exceeds the income test for a 12-week period. The pensioner concession card access is subject to this same test and time frame. Under this bill, pensions will be suspended for up to two years instead, during which time pensioners will undergo a simplified process to resume the pension if their income falls to the prescribed level. Both age and disability support pensioners will be able to keep their pensioner concession card for two years under these circumstances as an acknowledgement of the importance of the concessions that the pensioner concession card offers working pensioners. Pension partners of working pensioners will enjoy the same pension resumption and pensioner concession card arrangements for a two-year period. Importantly, this bill includes an annual review mechanism requiring a ministerial review to be tabled in parliament on the operation of the amendments and sunsetting of the amendments every 12 months unless determined otherwise by notifiable instruments. That is necessary because we would hope—indeed, this whole parliament would hope—that cost-of-living pressures in our country would ease, and we would hope that labour shortage pressures in our country would also ease. Having a review mechanism makes sure that taxpayers' money gets spent wisely. You could be excused for thinking that that sounds very much like the idea that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers trumpeted on Friday afternoon. You would be wrong. Labor's plan is less generous. Labor's plan is temporary. Labor's age pensioner and veterans reform initiative for pensioners can earn them an extra $4,000 for this financial year. This is an extra $4,000 on top of the $7,800 that is the maximum income allowed to be earned under the work bonus currently, bringing the maximum under Labor's improved work bonus plan to $11,800. This is an extra $153 on top of the $300 that can be earned every fortnight. The maximum fortnightly earning under Labor's plan is just $453. Labor's plan will allow pensioners to work an extra 4¼ hours every fortnight, or just over two hours every week, before they're financially penalised. Under the coalition's age pensioner and veterans reform initiative, pensioners can earn an extra $7,800 for this financial year and for future years. This is an extra $7,800 on top of the $7,800 that is the maximum income allowed to be earned under the work bonus currently, bringing the maximum amount that can be earned under the coalition's improved plan to $5,600 a year. This is an extra $300 on top of the $300 that can be earned every fortnight. The maximum fortnightly earning under the coalition's plan is $600. The coalition's plan allows pensioners to work an extra eight hours every fortnight, or four hours every week, before they are financially penalised. Why does Labor, under its plan, want to make age pensioners and veterans worse off than they would be under the coalition's plan? This bill sits before a Senate committee at the moment. That Senate committee has taken submissions. That Senate committee has not yet had a public hearing, because Labor senators thus far have not made themselves available to participate in a public hearing. Not only did Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers bring to the Jobs and Skills Summit, at the eleventh hour, a plan that is worse than the coalition's, but Labor senators don't even want to have a public inquiry into the coalition's plan, because members of the community would realise that Labor's plan lacks generosity, that Labor's plan is temporary. Senator Scarr 282997 They're embarrassed. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 They are very embarrassed, Senator Scarr. They're late to the party, and they've come embarrassed. Let me be clear: this is not a proposal for charity. This is an economic measure that deserves support now because small businesses are being hurt now. Age pensioners and veterans are experiencing real cost-of-living pressures now. Here is a bill. We have eight parliamentary sitting days before the federal budget. Senator Ayres, Senator Ciccone and Labor senators could come back to the Senate at any time over the next two weeks and say: 'Let's put politics aside. Let's be the best selves we can be, and let's endorse a plan that delivers for age pensioners and veterans and small businesses across the country.' What have some of those submissions to the inquiry had to say? Let me acknowledge the great and consistent advocacy that National Seniors Australia and Ian Henschke in particular have done both prior to the last election and since the election to get this initiative up. This initiative does not look exactly like the National Seniors initiative, but their advocacy and commitment to supporting age pensioners facing real cost-of-living challenges in our country deserve to be acknowledged. National Seniors Australia has said in a public submission to the committee: National Seniors Australia welcomes the proposal put forward by Senator Dean Smith to double the Work Bonus limit. … … … According to the latest ABS data—107,700 people 60-69 are not in the labour force, not retired and not currently employed, but want to work. Labour shortages across our agricultural communities are crippling. Grain Producers Australia, in its submission, says: GPA supports the positive intent of this Bill, to introduce changes to the social security entitlements and payments for Australia's veterans and pensioners, to help incentivise greater participation in the agricultural and rural workforce, by introducing more flexible rules and modern arrangements. Australian agriculture has faced long-term structural challenges with labour supply and whilst these problems are widely recognised, lasting solutions continue to elude policy-makers and governments. That would have been true until this bill was introduced into the Senate. Indeed, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry from my home state of Western Australia has said: In this context, it is those economies that can extract the most out of their local workforces that will gain a competitive edge in the global economy. … … … ABS data shows there is currently significant latent demand for over 65s to work. In 2019, the average hours of additional work sought by people over 65 was 685,000 hours. The total number of hours has since swelled and now stands at 724,000 hours. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said: During the current skills and labour shortages, pensioners and veterans can help provide business with the workers they need to keep operating. Not only can they fill roles, but the community can benefit from their experience in training, managing, and mentoring other staff as well as lifting overall productivity and bringing broader skills into the labour market. I would have thought that if Premier Dan Andrews thinks this is a good initiative, there surely can be no other excuses for not legislating it immediately. Dan Andrews supports the idea of older workers being able to enter the workforce to help address cost-of-living challenges and help address labour shortages, as does the New South Wales Treasurer, Matt Kean. What more is needed? The Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews; the New South Wales Treasurer, Matt Kean—what more is needed to convince Labor that this is an initiative that should be legislated now? I think it's very true that Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, did something very unorthodox for a new opposition leader following an election: he came up with a policy idea, which is this idea, on 26 June. There was enthusiastic head-nodding across this country because people understand this is a sensible solution. I think Senator Ayres himself is nodding, 'Yes, Senator Smith, I think that is a sensible solution.' But Labor's enthusiasm is lukewarm. If Labor were enthusiastic, they would have done this not after 101 days of being in government; they would have done it immediately. If Labor were not lukewarm, they would have made this the first initiative of the Jobs and Skills Summit, not the last. If Labor were enthusiastic and not lukewarm, they would be saying to pensioners and veterans: 'We will not make you wait. We will not make you wait until the budget. We will not make you wait until the legislation that comes out of the budget later this year.' Age pensioners and veterans are saying, 'Why are we waiting?' I hope that Senator Ayres, in his contribution, will be able to satisfy that question. And why is Labor's proposal less generous than the coalition's? It is because, in the submissions to the committee inquiry, one of the submitters has made it very, very clear that the initiative will pay for itself. I hope that when I walk out of the Senate chamber I'll get a call from the chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to say, 'Senator Smith, you're quite right. You caught us out. We've been avoiding a public inquiry on your bill, so we're going to have a public inquiry soon and we're going to get that report out because this is an initiative that deserves to be supported, and it deserves to be supported now.' The Jobs and Skills Summit did deliver a grand bargain for big unions, big government and big business. I've been around long enough to remember that once upon a time it was called the accord. But, Senator Ayres—indeed, all Labor senators—age pensioners and veterans in our community deserve their grand bargain, and they deserve it now. This bill can be legislated in the next eight sitting days, and I look forward to that being the outcome. 11:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I always enjoy Senator Smith's contributions and listen to them very carefully. I do think his capacity to confect enthusiasm and certitude on this piece of proposed legislation should be an exemplar to all senators today and into the future. It really is a remarkable thing. I don't criticise Senator Smith for bringing this piece of legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022, to the parliament but, honestly, we know he didn't draft it. We know it came from somewhere else. If he had drafted it, it would be much more elegantly worded and much more politically sharp. We have a bill that was drafted in the opposition leader's office. There are three key words in Senator Smith's contribution: 'beginning to hurt'. That's what he said. Cost-of-living pressures are just 'beginning to hurt'. Labor supply issues are just 'beginning to hurt'. They've been a problem for the last 105 days! They didn't exist prior to the last 105 days! They're just 'beginning to hurt'. I just say to senators opposite: when you do go to the government party room, or if you ever knock on the door of the Leader of the Opposition's office and you get in, just say: 'We need a better plan. This isn't going very far. Nobody on earth is convinced, least of all ordinary Australians, that cost-of-living pressures are suddenly a new development that's happened over the last 105 days.' The Morrison government's approach on these questions is utterly sclerotic. There is no action. Mr Morrison said he didn't want to leave a legacy. He never said a truer word. Nothing the Morrison government did on the cost of living or labour supply troubled the scorers. In fact, as Senator Payne well knows, some of the measures that the Morrison government undertook, particularly during the COVID crisis, rode in exactly the wrong direction. It's as if this debate over labour shortages and skills shortages and the cost of living occurred only over the last 105 days. It's really been a debate, of course, that's been going for well over the last three years. Where was this proposition in 2019? Where was it in 2020? Where were Senator Smith and his colleagues all through 2021? Where were they on this proposition—generous as Senator Smith describes it—in the first few months of 2022? They were nowhere, of course; they were defending Mr Morrison. You can't find too many of them over there publicly or privately who want to defend Mr Morrison now but they were all up to their ears in it, defending Mr Morrison day in, day out. Senator Smith wasn't doing it very loudly but there he was, you could find him. If pushed, publicly, he would stoutly defend him. There was zero action on labour supply, zero action on cost of living. In fact, the last government did worse. I will never forget when Mr Morrison sent the message to temporary visa holders to go home. I remember walking around in the Sydney CBD seeing piles of furniture out the front of blocks of flats. You would see food queues—food queues in Australia in 2020, 2021—as people were sent packing, and now these characters want to come in here and complain about skills shortages. Where were they then? They are full of big ideas today but were utterly vacant on big ideas over the last few years. There was a place for big ideas about our shared national problems in the labour market. It was the last two days of last week. It wasn't a bad place, if you are interested in big ideas about the future of the labour market, the Jobs and Skills Summit that the Prime Minister convened. It was denigrated by Senator Smith but it was a place for big ideas, a place for Australians to work together on some of the big national problems and, if I can say, set the tone. The leadership of the trade union movement was there. Business, large and small, was there. The stakeholders went. Key organisations, they were all there. Experts—people who know things stuff instead of just saying things about stuff—many of them were there; many of them spoke up. All of the states, Labor and Liberal, were there. Mr Littleproud went, good on him; it was the right call. It would have been ridiculous for him not to attend. That's where Australia was. That's where the leadership of corporate Australia—not everyone could get a ticket—was, and many of them participated in the hundred mini summits the government convened in the weeks leading up to the big summit. Where were Mr Dutton and the Liberal Party? Where were they? Mr Dutton was outside, on the radio and the television, denigrating the participants who went, pouring scorn on the participants who went, trying to encourage a bit of scepticism in the community about the idea that Australians would get together, recognising their own interests but putting the national interest first, and try and deal with some of these questions. Where was Mr Dutton? It was the old Morrison politics of division; that's where he was. I reckon if Senator Smith had been invited he probably would have gone too. I listened to Senator Cash on Radio National this morning, more of the same nonsense. She wants to denigrate trade unions officials, wants to denigrate the businesses large and small who attended, who are actually coming to grips with some of the challenges that we are facing. It was more reminiscent of a young Liberals' speech. It really made me think how difficult it is in those first months and years facing up to dealing with the legacy of a sclerotic and hopeless government— Senator Dean Smith 241710 There are a few young Liberal people here too. Senator AYRES 16913 there are a few young Labor people here too, don't worry—walking into a period where suddenly you reflect on what it is you should have been up to over the last few years. If Senator Smith had picked up the phone and given one of us a call we could have told him last week, on Friday, what it was that the Prime Minister had announced, amongst 36 other measures. The Prime Minister announced the work bonus measure as recently as last Friday, and there was more discussion about it over the weekend. I want to spell out some of the key provisions of that announcement. The income bank will assist working social security pensioners over age pension age, including those receiving the aged pension, the disability support pension and the carer payment. It will also assist some of those receiving veterans entitlements, such as the service pension and income support supplement. From 1 December 2022, pensioners over the age pension age will have their work bonus income bank credited with $4,000. This will take the maximum work bonus income bank from $7,800 to $11,800 until 30 June 2023. The increase will be added to each age pensioner's work bonus income bank upfront. That means that every age pensioner could have an extra $4,000 of employment income disregarded from the income test from the start, rather than accumulating it over time. Age pensioners who currently work and have already accrued the maximum income balance of $7,800 will now be able to have up to $11,800 disregarded for the purposes of the age pension income test. This provides a very strong incentive for those who do not currently work to start earning additional income if they wish to do so. It's a significant reform. Age pensioners who are currently working and have already benefited from the full value of the concession will have their income bank topped up by $4,000. A pensioner who is working and has used some of their income bank will also receive the $4,000 top-up. The maximum income bank limit will return to $7,800 at the end of this financial year. By providing an immediate top up of $4,000, rather than allowing it to accrue over time as currently happens, this measure will provide an immediate benefit to any pensioner who starts work or works additional hours and is going to help address pressing labour shortages in a practical and immediate way. The work bonus operates in addition to the income test free area. Under the work bonus, the first $300 of work income a fortnight is not counted in the pension income test and as such does not reduce the amount of pension received. Pensioners are able to build up any unused amount of the $300 fortnightly exemption in a work bonus income bank up to a total of $7,800. I acknowledge that in all of these areas—for veterans; pensioners; disability pensioners; participants in the NDIS; long-term unemployed Australians, particularly First Nations Australians; and women, whose participation rate is not as high in the labour market and are participating in areas of the labour market where incomes are lower and employment is more contingent—there is more work to do. What I say to the chamber is that we have as a government moved to deal with this question carefully and in a way that includes all of the Australian community. We have done it in a careful, methodical way. It is a significant improvement, but there is of course more to do on all of these questions. The way to get the best out of Australians and Australian institutions is of course to play a leadership role from government and encourage people to work together, not to encourage Australians to think that there might be some sectional advantage in playing with the politics of division—a politics that some on the other side are all too comfortable playing. And we'll continue to work through these issues with the trade union movement and with business, large and small, to develop practical solutions and to do the kinds of things Senator Smith has only recently become so worried about. The cost of living and labour shortages are issues that the Morrison government talked about but didn't lift a finger to resolve. On the cost-of-living questions, there have been some announcements today about indexation and general support for age-pensioner and service payments. Regarding the three pillars of the retirement system—compulsory superannuation, voluntary savings and the age pension—the age pension is now the largest component of social security expenditure. Expenditure in 2022-23 is around $54 billion. A significant announcement is being made today about indexation, which will see the JobSeeker payment for singles without children increasing by $25.70 a fortnight and significant increases to other government social security payments. These payments will increase from 20 September. That reflects a serious contribution—the largest indexation for quite some time—that will make a real contribution on cost-of-living issues. (Time expired) 11:46 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to start by thanking Senator Smith for his focus on income support in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022. Senator Smith and I have a long history of working collaboratively on complex issues, and I want to particularly acknowledge his measured and very considered approach on some of the challenging issues facing us in the parliament. This bill fits within a framework of needing to increase people's well-being right across the board. The Australian Greens believe that a socially just, democratic and sustainable society should be underpinned by a guaranteed liveable income, complemented by the provision of universal social services. We believe that everyone should have enough to live on and essential services to enable them to fully participate in society. That is why we want to see the development and adoption of a comprehensive suite of tools to measure poverty across the range of communities in Australia, including a national definition of poverty and ultimately the eradication of poverty in Australia. We can choose to eradicate poverty in Australia. A key step in that process would be the reform of our income support system in its entirety to ensure a guaranteed liveable income for all. This bill goes nowhere near a guaranteed liveable income, and the government's version of it falls even further short. But it does include a number of measures to better support pensioners, making it easier for pensioners to earn more before their pension is reduced. The changes in this bill would also make it easier for people to keep their pensioner concession card when they earn above the income threshold in a 12-week period. The questions this bill is addressing—of how to balance the income test and ensure that we're providing support for everyone who needs it—are really important questions. In reflecting on the measures in this bill I am of course very conscious that the Greens were actually the only party in the last election with a clear proposal to provide earlier access to the age pension. As we said at the time, lowering the eligibility age will expand access to the pension for hundreds of thousands of older Australians who are currently living in poverty and will provide a well-deserved earlier retirement with guaranteed income support for people who have worked their entire lives on low wages in order to take care of their families. Since the Rudd government's 2009 increase to the pension age from 65 to 67, Liberal and Labor have been failing low-income older Australians. Across the country, thousands of older Australians who are approaching retirement age have limited capacity to continue working or have been excluded from the labour market entirely. Thousands more are in physically demanding minimum-wage jobs, forced to keep working an additional two years because of successive Labor and Liberal governments failing to give them the support they need. So we need to be doing more than just enabling pensioners who are able to work to increase the hours that they can work. In particular, we need to be supporting people who, at the end of their working life, having worked hard all their life, don't have to be literally breaking their backs in manual labour, as many of them are—whether it's working in hospitals, whether it's doing heavy lifting—just to survive. Of course, the measure that we took to the last election of reducing the age that people could access the pension was in addition to our proposal to increase the rate of payments to all recipients to $88 a day, so that people on JobSeeker, people on pensions, people on youth allowance and people on the disability support pension would all receive an income payment above the poverty line, so that nobody was languishing in poverty. We also wanted to remove compulsory obligations—those largely pointless tasks and hoops and forms and meetings that people on income support have to subject themselves to to receive income support. As an aside, there is increasing evidence that some people—more people—are actively choosing to not access income support. That's not because they don't need it. They are choosing to try and survive with no income at all because of these so-called mutual obligation processes that are proposed. I met a woman earlier this year who was homeless on the streets of south Melbourne. She told me that she was actively choosing to not have any income from the government at all because the whole processes of having to go through the mutual obligations was worsening her mental health so much that she decided that being homeless and living on the streets with no income at all was actually going to be better for her mental health than having to jump through the pointless mutual obligation hoops that she was being forced to. So, as well as reforms that benefit pensioners, we want to ensure that no-one, no matter how old they are, is living in poverty. We know that poverty is a political choice. It's a choice that the government is making, and it's a choice that the previous government made. And this is at the same time that they are choosing to hand out billions of dollars to billionaires and billions of dollars to the ultra wealthy. Senator Ayres talked about the very important measure that the Treasurer has been spruiking today for increases to income support. This is actually only just keeping pace with inflation. In announcing these measures, the Treasurer said: We know that it won't solve every problem for everybody but it's important that we try and make sure that those payments keep up. That's what the indexation is about. It will be welcome even as we acknowledge that times will still be tough for a lot of people. Yes, indeed, Treasurer. Times are indeed very tough, and your government is choosing to keep them that way. The government is choosing not to increase the woefully inadequate rates of income support for jobseekers, for pensioners, for people on the disability pension, for young people, for students. The government is choosing to keep millions of Australians living in abject poverty, where people can't afford to eat three meals a day. People are being diagnosed with malnutrition and scurvy at the same time that this government is proceeding with the stage 3 tax cuts. Recent analysis shows just how skewed and how wrong proceeding with the stage 3 tax cuts is in this context The Guardian reported that the richest one per cent of Australians will get as much benefit from the stage 3 tax cuts as the poorest 65 per cent combined. The tax cuts, which will cost $243 billion to 2032-33, would see $160 billion flow to men and $83 billion flow to women. Let's be clear. At the same time that we are debating this bill, which is going to give some very modest increases to pensioners to be able to earn more, we have both sides of politics, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party alike, planning to give $244 billion to very wealthy people over the next 10 years. At the same time, the indexation that the government's touting today is worth less than $2 a day to people living on JobSeeker—$2 a day!—whereas everyone earning over $200,000, and that's everybody in this place, will get $24 a day in the stage 3 tax cuts. Two dollars a day is not enough for people facing a housing crisis, for people who are struggling to buy food. In the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit last week, my office did a call-out for people's stories, for their experiences of being on JobSeeker and what that did to their ability to find work. Their answers were stark and sobering. One said: Being on JobSeeker feels like a punishment, a punishment for not being able to find work when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. You see people around you enjoying the most basic things, like catching up with friends for a coffee, and you feel like you've been kicked when you're already down. And, to be honest, I'm one of the lucky ones: I don't have children or pets that depend on me to provide for them. When the rate was raised, I was able to buy winter clothes without worrying if I'd be cutting into the food budget. This shouldn't be a normality! No one should have to choose between a meal and a jumper. It's a punishment and it is killing people.' Another story: I am so blessed to now be in full-time employment, but in the past few years I have been on Jobseeker payments for extended periods—it was demoralising—and frightening. There was no 'safety net'—nothing to be done except watch the little bit of savings I had built up dwindle to nothing, and then every new letter in the letter box filled me with dread—another bill I had to try to negotiate not paying. I became depressed and fearful. And angry at the injustice of it all. And at the stigma—created and perpetuated even by Centrelink itself. Please continue to fight for those trapped in poverty. I can assure them that's what we Greens will continue to do. Senator Smith's bill has some measures that will make life easier for age pensioners, but there is so much more that needs to be done. And there's a simple answer here: we can make a different choice. We can choose to increase the rate of income support so that payment rates are above the poverty line. We can choose to care for people rather than profit. We can choose people over corporations. The Greens believe that no-one in Australia should be living in poverty, and we will keep fighting for that change. 11:57 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to speak on Senator Dean Smith's private senators bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022. Firstly, I congratulate my very good friend and colleague from Western Australia on his work and his enduring commitment to older Australians, to pensioners and to veterans not only in our home state of Western Australia, but also nationally. Contrary to what Senator Ayres told the chamber, this is a project of passion for Senator Smith. For his entire time in the Senate he has worked tirelessly for older Australians and also, in particular, for increasing grandparents' rights who have responsibility for children. This bill is the culmination of many months of consultation by Senator Smith, and others, with businesses and agricultural organisations and in particular in partnership with National Seniors Australia. As I said, it is a genuine and longstanding commitment. I admire greatly Senator Ayres' attempts to deflect from the very substandard proposals that the Labor Party—well after their first 100 days—have now put forward. In my contribution today I'd like to focus on the contrast between this excellent piece of public policy—and I thank Senator Rice for her comments about the legislation and about its benefits. As a senator for Western Australia, I do welcome and support this bill, which will improve the livelihoods not only of thousands of Australians, but thousands of Western Australian pensioners and veterans. This bill does contrast sharply with the government's long overdue announcement on an age and veterans pension income credit, and again I note that it took Senator Ayres probably 10 minutes of rewriting the history of the previous government before he was able to very lightly touch on the benefits, as he saw it, of Labor's emperor-with-no-clothes policy. I will explain why it is so deficient. As Senator Smith said, at best it is a very lukewarm response. It is a substandard measure and a very temporary measure, unlike the measures contained in this bill which are permanent for older Australians and for veterans. Sadly, this is yet another classic ALP response, one that is clearly influenced by the dead hand of the trade union movement, who are very fast becoming the de facto government of this nation. Not only is the Labor announcement too little too late for many Australians, but, as I have said, it is a very poor attempt to copy our policy that we announced in June of this year. Let me remind the chamber that in June the coalition announced our policy to double the amount of income that age pensioners and veterans and service pensioners can earn without reducing their pension payments. This is something that we put forward in June. As you can see, it is now sitting before a Senate committee, which, completely and utterly disgracefully, Labor is now stalling. There have been no hearings on this bill yet in the Senate committee, which is something that I also join Senator Smith in calling for. Let's now compare the two. Let's contrast the two policies. Our policy is to increase the amount that can be earned each fortnight from $300 to $600 for individuals or $1,200 for couples without impacting on their pension payments. Labor's plan will only allow pensioners to work an extra 4.25 hours per fortnight. That's right. I will say that again: only 4.25 hours per fortnight, which is just over two hours per week. That is pathetic. In contrast, under the coalition's age pension and veterans reform initiative pensioners can earn an extra $7,800 for this financial year and for future years, which, again, contrasts sharply with Labor, who are just introducing a very light-touch policy of 4.25 hours per fortnight. Again, under the dead hand of the unions, they're not making this permanent and that is a complete and utter disgrace. Our policy, in contrast, is an extra $7,800 on top of the $7,800, which is currently the maximum income allowance to be earned under the work bonus. This will bring the total amount per year, under our plan, to $15,600. That's an extra $300 on top of the $300 that can be earned every fortnight. The coalition's plan allows pensioners to work an extra eight hours every fortnight, or four hours every week, before they are penalised. Labor's so-called income credit will only increase the amount eligible participants can earn to $453 per fortnight. That's well short of the $600 per fortnight proposed by the coalition. The coalition's policy also extends the period in which age and disability support pensioners are required to reapply for payments when their employment income exceeds prescribed limits. It's also to retain access to the pensioner concession card for up to two years in these circumstances. Seniors' organisations have said to us that that is something that is very important but something that has clearly fallen on the deaf ears of those opposite. Also, to the dismay of senators on this side, it appears that Labor has completely cynically and unnecessarily delayed this announcement to coincide with the government's jobs summit. Not only is that unnecessary, but also it's having serious consequences on our economy. By delaying this for over 100 days eligible participants have not yet had the confidence to work. So during the first quarter of this financial year, which was a critical time in our nation's economy, people have not been able to go out and start filling some of those jobs. These are Australians who want to be in the workforce, who could have been in the workforce today providing such necessary support to businesses who are now closing, because they cannot find enough workers to assist. As Senator Smith asked Senator Ayres rhetorically through the chair: why are we waiting? Despite all of the revisionist history we got from Senator Ayres, there was no answer. In my own home state of Western Australia businesses and communities are battling staff shortages each and every day. Businesses are closing. Small-business owners in particular are struggling to do all of the extra hours to keep their businesses open. According to the ABS there are 107,000 people aged between 60 and 69 who are not in the labour force—they're not retired, but they are not employed—but they want to work. Australia's labour shortage, while bad right across this nation, is even worse in my home state of Western Australia. Despite that, the Labor Party, for all of their rhetoric about, 'Yes, we care about Western Australia, and we understand you're the financial engine room of our nation,' guess how many delegates we had from Western Australia? Colleagues, guess how many we had from Western Australia? Senator Scarr 282997 Ten, five? Senator REYNOLDS 250216 It was seven, so you were close—seven from the state that is the most impacted by job shortages. There were seven delegates from my state. Senator Scarr 282997 Shame! Senator REYNOLDS 250216 That is a complete and utter disgrace, and, as Senator Scarr describes it, it is a disgrace and a shame. In Western Australia we need every able-bodied person who can work and wants to work to be able to work and to be contributing to the workforce. We simply need this policy now. We don't need a half-baked Labor influenced policy from Labor that will provide an extra 2.25 hours per week. We need something far more substantial, and we need it now from the Labor Party. This is absolutely typical of a pattern that is now emerging from the Labor Party. In the first hundred days they have already broken so many promises. They have delayed making any decisions, instead going through to summits, to reviews. You wonder what they've been doing in opposition when in their first 100 days they don't have a plan. They've got a lot of fabulous rhetoric, but they don't have a plan. There is nothing more concrete and that will provide more benefits and that will be self-funded, after the first few people take up this scheme, than this piece of legislation by Senator Smith. I call on the Labor Party to at least allow hearings on this bill now in the Community Affairs Legislation Committee so that we can hear from the people who will benefit the most from this. The Liberals will continue to support Senator Smith's legislation. We will continue to advocate for people who are on the pension—veterans pension and age pension—people who have so much to contribute to our nation. But they have roadblocks in the way right now. I commend this bill to this chamber. 12:08 Senator HUG 273828 New South Wales HES () (): We know that the Labor Party had been waiting for their jobs-skills talkfest before looking to do anything productive to address the skills shortage that is being faced across so many sectors across the entire country. This proposal in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022 to allow pensioners and those on a disability support pension to work longer hours without impacting on their pension was proposed by this opposition, by the opposition leader, a substantial period of time ago, around 26 June, to start to put in train methods and ways that we could use to boost workforce shortages as quickly as possible. This is the point: we've heard lots and lots of things being talked about—increasing migration, increasing skilled and unskilled numbers, bringing people into the country, working on the visa processing system to get them through. Whilst much of that is commendable and needs to be done—probably at a much faster rate—to ensure that we can address these shortages, in both skilled and unskilled positions, we have a workforce ready to go. We have a substantial number of people who are in receipt of an age pension or disability support pension and would like to work more hours. But those opposite, now in government, of course opposed this up until their talkfest. Up until the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was something that would not be countenanced. Is that because it was proposed by the opposition? Is it because they have a level of pettiness that won't allow good ideas to be discussed? Is it because this is a government that isn't going to govern for all Australians? Is it a government that's only interested in governing for its union mates? We needed to make sure that John Setka, Sally McManus and the majority of participants that were at the Jobs and Skills Summit representing those unions would give this the tick of approval, because we couldn't have a situation at all where those in government upset their union mates! To be clear, the unions currently represent around 10 per cent of Australians in the private sector workforce, yet they had 33 seats at this summit talkfest. As Senator Reynolds just made the point, there were only seven participants from Western Australia. The Western Australians were completely overshadowed by the unions in how much say they had, what their influence was and the numbers they had representing them at this talkfest last week. To put that in context, 10 per cent of Australians are members of unions; 41 per cent of the Australian workforce is employed in small business. Guess how many seats small business had at the table? Guess how many seats representing small business, which employs 41 per cent of Australians, were at the table? One—one seat. Those of us on this side of the chamber are more than aware that the government has no interest in small business. They had every opportunity, but, when those on this side of the chamber when in government did anything or proposed anything to boost small business, it was vehemently opposed at every single opportunity. But I guess what's even more important for those everyday Australians that are looking to what happens in this place—at what this place and the other place are doing to address cost-of-living pressures—is what is impacting them: the ability to put groceries on the table; to afford to pay power bills; to, currently, warm their houses; and, very, very soon, to cool their houses as we go into summer. What topics around that were talked about at the jobs and skills talkfest? None. But easing workforce shortages would make a significant contribution to easing cost-of-living pressures. We know this because cost-of-living pressures are significantly impacted at the moment due to supply chain issues. It's the supply chain that is being so dramatically impacted. There are increased costs of fuel. We know that the war in Ukraine is having impacts, which is something that we completely understand but those opposite, when in opposition, denied was any factor whatsoever. But we do know the supply chain is having a significant impact on cost-of-living pressures. How do we start to make practical inroads into supply chain issues? We boost the workforce. We need to do that today. We need to do that as soon as possible. As I said, there is a willing and able workforce ready to go. They are ready to do an extra shift or an extra day to help the small businesses that so many Australians—41 per cent of Australians—are employed in. They are available to go today. So I commend Senator Dean Smith's bill. We will continue to support it and make sure that these sorts of solutions—practical solutions—can be enacted quickly to make a real difference to help everyday Australian families, whether by putting more money in their pockets or by helping to ease the workplace shortages, and to make sure that we are supporting everyday Australians. As someone who sat on the community affairs committee in the last term of parliament, what I find extraordinary is the volume of inquiries we conducted. Because we understand the importance of looking at all legislative options, we understood the importance of making sure inquiries were held that would look at what solutions may be on the table. I would suggest that more good ideas come from this side of the chamber, particularly when it comes to helping small businesses and particularly when it comes to helping working families. But we held many, many inquiries. The fact is that those opposite, in these first hundred days of parliament, have gone out of their way to block an inquiry, to block looking at this as a solution. This is a government that held themselves up as the soon-to-be bastions of transparency. They wanted to make sure there was a new politics, that there was an open exchange of ideas, that there was transparency in what they were going to put forward in a legislative agenda that is going to have a direct impact not only on disability support pensioners and not only on age pensioners but on all of those small businesses that employ 41 per cent of Australians as well as the larger businesses that employ many more Australians who are able to then contribute more without having their pension impacted. So, what do those opposite do? They block an inquiry. They say, 'No, no, no; we don't want to look at this.' Is that because the unions told them not to? Is it because they can't look at any idea that's not their own? Is it because they don't care about cost-of-living pressures? We're yet to hear a word come out of the mouths of so many of those opposite as to what they plan to do. They've a plan for a plan—a secret plan to fight inflation that's allegedly rumbling around. But there is no plan to ease cost-of-living pressures. Those opposite spruiked I think around 94 times in the lead-up to the election that $275 was going to come off every Australian's power bill. Well, try to get them to say '$275' now. Not one of those opposite will mention the figure, because, as Australians are seeing, day after day, quarter after quarter, their power bills are continuing to rise. So, those opposite, who promised that Australians would be better off—how are they going to be better off? They're certainly not going to be $275 better off on their power bills. They're certainly not going to be better off when you object to moving towards allowing pensioners to increase their activity, increase their work, increase their hours, increase their productivity, increase the contribution that they can make to our economy. But when you refuse to look at that, when you refuse to inquire into it and to look at any ideas that aren't your own, you are standing in the way of improving the life of everyday Australians. You are standing in the way of easing cost-of-living pressures. All those opposite are interested in is making sure that John Setka gets his payback for the ABCC, making sure that we're going to see increased costs on building sites and increased costs to everyday Australians who are trying to build their own homes. Building their own homes is going to become more difficult, because all of a sudden the building commission won't be there anymore. We're going to see union thuggery return—not that it ever left, but we actually had the ABCC, which could look into union thuggery. But we're going to get rid of that. We're going to see workplaces and building sites become particularly unsafe, especially for women. We know how many cases were brought to the ABCC, and every one of those cases meant additional costs to people building a home and to businesses developing property. All of that, those cost-of-living pressures, are just going to increase, at a time when we have housing issues, when we need to be working towards getting more stock into the market. But that's not going to happen, because the union mates have to be appeased. We on this side are committed to ensuring that pensioners, disability support pensioners, are able to participate more fully, that they're able to boost their income, that they are able to continue to contribute to Australia's productivity and that small businesses are able to staff their businesses, so that restaurants are able to do both a lunch and a dinner service because they can actually get staff to work. These are the real impacts that are being felt. Retail businesses are not able to get someone to work. Aged-care homes that could be desperately keeping nurses and other aged-care workers in the workforce aren't able to bring them back just for one extra shift a week, because, at the moment, the reduction to their pension they would receive would have such an impact on their income that they are unable to do it. This is a simple solution. It is a fantastic bill that has been put forward by Senator Smith. Debate interrupted. MOTIONS 21 MOTIONS Afghanistan 21 12:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senators Birmingham and Payman, move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges: (i) 15 August 2022 marks one year since Kabul fell to the Taliban, (ii) this date will be a particularly difficult day for many in Australia, for the families of the 41 Australian servicepeople who tragically died in Afghanistan and of those that have been lost since returning, for the more than 39,000 Australian Defence Force personnel and civilians who deployed to Afghanistan over twenty years, for Afghan-Australian communities with loved ones still in Afghanistan, for the thousands of Australian police, diplomats, officials and aid workers that contributed to our efforts there, and (iii) our commitment to help those who assisted Australian operations in Afghanistan find safe harbour, and the continued efforts of the Australian Government and non-governmental organisations to resettle Afghans in Australia; (b) notes: (i) Australia remains committed to working with the international community to respond to the humanitarian needs of the people of Afghanistan, and (ii) the Taliban, who remain in effective control of Afghanistan, have spurned the opportunity for reform, engaged in violence and repression, and systematically rolled back human rights advancements, undermined media and political freedoms, harboured terrorists and taken away the rights of women and girls; (c) recognises: (i) protracted, severe and deepening humanitarian, economic, security and development crises continue to have a devastating impact on the people of Afghanistan, and (ii) the contributions made by the Afghan diaspora in Australia and that 31,500 visa places for Afghan nationals have been made available over four program years; and (d) calls on the Taliban to: (i) stand by its commitment to uphold the rights of all Afghans, including women, girls and minority groups, and (ii) not allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorist organisations and their support networks. At the outset, can I start by acknowledging the support and cosponsorship of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and also Senator Payman, who will speak and who obviously has a very deep personal interest in this. Colleagues, a year ago in Afghanistan, 12-year-old girls went to school. Some aspired to be engineers, doctors or lawyers. Now those same girls are barred from attending secondary school, whatever their dreams. A year ago, many women in Afghanistan went to work, ran their own businesses, provided for themselves and for their families. Today they are effectively excluded from the workplace, directed not to leave their home without a male chaperone. A year ago, Afghanistan had diverse media. Today journalists face arrest, intimidation and harassment, restricted in what they can report, if at all, on conditions and developments in their own country. An estimated 40 per cent of media outlets have been closed, and others are self-censoring. The Afghanistan of today is a diminished country from that which we saw before Kabul fell to the Taliban on 15 August 2021. It is a country facing an economic crisis, growing humanitarian demands and ongoing problems with security and governance. Following the one-year anniversary of that day, it's timely for this place to reflect upon the journey we have taken as a country with the people of Afghanistan and with the international community. I start by acknowledging that 15 August is a particularly difficult day for many in Australia for different reasons. Our 20-year legacy of engagement saw more than 39,000 Australian Defence Force members and civilians serve in Afghanistan. As part of an international effort, they worked and fought alongside coalition and Afghan partners to deny Afghanistan as a safe haven for international terrorism and help Afghans rebuild their country. On behalf of their nation, they did an incredibly important job in the most difficult of circumstances. They should be proud of their service, as we are. We thank them for it. Tragically, 41 Australian servicepeople died in Afghanistan. Many more returned home with lasting physical and mental injuries, and we have lost more Defence personnel since they returned. For those veterans and family members who may have been concerned with or affected by the anniversary of the fall of Kabul, we encourage you to reach out to Open Arms, which provides support for current and ex-serving ADF personnel and their families. This is a good time to check up on your mates. The one-year anniversary is a sad time for the Afghan community here in Australia and around the world. Many left their homeland in the most trying of circumstances. Some had to make the difficult, life-changing decision to navigate a difficult journey to the Kabul International Airport with family and loved ones. They then had to negotiate their way through the intimidation of Taliban checkpoints, congregate for hours, if not days, in the heat of the Kabul summer, with tens of thousands of people also desperate to enter the gates of the airport to secure safe passage out of the country. For those who were able to depart, there remain deep concerns about the safety of family and friends still in Afghanistan. Today the Taliban remain in effective control of Afghanistan and have reverted to misogynistic and oppressive practices that characterised its rule during the 1990s. The Taliban have worked systematically to take away the rights of women and girls. The Ministry of Women's Affairs, part of the previous Afghan administration, was abolished and replaced by the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which issues decrees forcing all Afghan women to cover from head to toe and mandating that women leave home only when necessary and always with a male guardian. Male guardians are being punished for noncompliance with their directives. Likewise, since August last year the Taliban have threatened and intimidated journalists and media workers and subjected around 120 to arbitrary arrest and detention, and shocking videos have emerged of Taliban thugs whipping and beating defenceless journalists. This is a deliberate effort to silence dissent. The United Nations has recorded that in the 10 months since the fall of Kabul the Taliban have committed 160 acts of extrajudicial killings, 178 arbitrary arrests and detentions and 56 acts of torture against former Afghan national defence and security forces and government officials. While the Taliban double down on repression and inclusion they have been negligent in providing the most basic services to the people of Afghanistan amidst a severe and deepening humanitarian crisis. Violence, recurrent natural disasters, poverty, drought and the COVID-19 pandemic have left the Afghan people vulnerable. The United Nations estimates that 24.4 million people, 59 per cent of the population, are now in need of humanitarian assistance, an increase of six million since the beginning of 2021. The World Food Programme estimates that almost 19 million people will face acute food insecurity in coming months through to November 2022, a situation made worse by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australia will continue to speak up for the human rights of Afghans. No country has formally normalised relationships with the Taliban, and the international community have been very clear about our expectations, including the need to respect human rights, particularly for women and girls and minorities, to observe humanitarian principles and to deter any transnational terrorism resurgence from Afghanistan. I join, as I am sure all do in this chamber, the voices across the international community in calling on the Taliban to stand by its undertakings and to set a firm date for the opening of secondary schools to all children, and I call on the Taliban to respect the rights of all Afghans, including women and girls and minority groups, and to remove restrictions on women's movement and their right to access employment. It is not in our national interest for Afghanistan to again become a training ground for terrorists or for organised crime there to go unchecked, and history shows us the flow-on impacts of an unstable and ungoverned Afghanistan. It has consequences for the world, it has consequences for our region and it has consequences for Australia. Al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri was killed in a US airstrike in Kabul on 30 July. He was indicted by the United States for the part he played in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and coordinated the 11 September hijackings that destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001. So many lives have been lost and so much blood has been spilled since, including of those Australians who served, sacrificed and gave their lives in Afghanistan. Let the terrorists see that Afghanistan will never be a safe haven for their hatred and attacks on our collective humanity. Afghanistan remains the world's major producer of illicit opium, accounting for 86 per cent of production in 2021, and Afghans remain vulnerable to human trafficking and modern slavery. We're working with the international community to respond to the unfolding humanitarian crisis, now one of the worst in the world. Over the past year we have committed $141 million, mostly through UN agencies, to ensure that aid is delivered to those most in need, and with our humanitarian partners, Australian support is saving lives. We are providing emergency food supplies, we are enabling responses to natural disasters like the June earthquake in the south-east of the country, we are supporting women's access to sexual and reproductive health care, we are delivering education to primary school boys and girls and we are providing shelter to the most vulnerable, recognising that displacement affects recovery and stability. We have also supported those neighbouring countries hosting the many Afghans who have fled the country. The fall of Kabul led to one of Australia's largest humanitarian evacuations, and over a nine-day period officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—supported by colleagues from Home Affairs, Australian Border Force and of course the ADF—led the whole-of-government effort to facilitate the safe movement of around 4100 people out of Kabul on 32 flights. I thank all those who were part of this urgent and dangerous mission. In addition to those on the ground in Kabul, officials in Dubai, Doha, Tehran and Islamabad supported the evacuation operation, and we want to recognise the role of host governments in supporting this important phase of the operation. People will know, when in opposition, we were highly critical. We were critical of the approach of the Morrison government, which failed to act on warnings about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, appeared to apply rules inconsistently and did not move fast enough to evacuate locally engaged employees who had helped Australia. The Albanese government is commissioning an independent review of how decisions were made, including the application and appeals process, record keeping and departmental resourcing. In the meantime, we will do what we can to enable safe departure from Afghanistan. Following the conclusion of the evacuation phase from Kabul airport, almost 3,000 people have departed Afghanistan for Australia, including on 22 flights out of Islamabad and on six Qatari-facilitated flights via Doha. A total of 31,500 places have been earmarked for Afghan nationals over the next four years, which comprises 26,500 places under our humanitarian program and 5,000 under the family stream of the migration program. Our focus is on doing everything we can to assist people fleeing persecution and seeking help, but we should be clear: this is a very difficult set of circumstances, not least because border crossings out of Afghanistan are difficult and they are dangerous. At the same time, the demand for protection is growing, particularly as conditions under the Taliban deteriorate. This government is steadfast in its commitment to supporting the Afghan community at this distressing time. The Afghan diaspora brings its own special contribution to multicultural Australia, including my recently elected colleague who will speak in this debate, Senator Payman. For this community and for many others around the world, this anniversary will bring much pain and great sadness, but let us remind ourselves that history did not stop on that day. As difficult as the forward path is, it continues, and Australia remains part of this journey. 12:31 Senator BIRMING H6X South Australia HAM (—) (): I rise to also speak in support of the motion noting the first anniversary of the fall of Kabul, a motion which I am pleased to co-sponsor with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senator Payman, for whom this motion brings extremely personal reflections. I thank the government for the opportunity to co-sponsor this motion. It is with a degree of great sadness and disappointment for so many people that through this motion we acknowledge that, on 15 August this year, it was one year since the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. We acknowledge all the consequences the last year has brought to the people of Afghanistan and to the Afghan diaspora here in Australia and around the world. Many still feel, quite understandably, for loved ones in Afghanistan. As we speak to this motion, we also note that we are just four days away from the 21st anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that so shook the world at that time and which sparked the military engagement to come in Afghanistan. The return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan was a major blow to all those who fought for peace, for freedom and for human rights in Afghanistan over those long 20 years. That disappointment, no doubt, is felt most acutely by the many Afghan people alongside those who sacrificed so much in pursuit of peace and stability. Today we honour the 41 Australian soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice during their service in Afghanistan. We honour those from other nations who served alongside them and those within Afghanistan—Afghans—who equally sacrificed. We honour the many more Australians who were wounded and those who continue to experience the trauma of what they faced and endured, including those whose lives have been lost since returning home. This anniversary, I'm sure, is felt intensely by the more than 39,000 Australian Defence Force personal and civilians who served in Afghanistan; felt intensely by their family, friends and loved ones; felt intensely by those from all nations who served during those conflicts. We honour them, we acknowledge their pain and we thank them for their service. The images we all saw on 15 August last year and in the days surrounding that—of people crushing to get to flights to evacuate out of Kabul, of the desperation to flee—are a haunting reminder of the fall of Kabul. Australia, through the work of the Australian Defence Force and other agencies, facilitated the departure of 4,100 people out of Kabul on dozens of flights. I acknowledge and thank all of those involved in those operations. Eighty thousand people were evacuated in those few days, thanks to the combined efforts of nations around the world. There are many stories of those who managed to escape, of those who made connections with people in this please, with people throughout our systems of government and with those in other nations that helped them to be able to escape. There was a day-and-night effort put in by Australian officials and by those of like-minded countries to help as many as possible. Sadly, of course, there are many more who were not able to undertake that journey or to have that opportunity. As this motion notes, Australia remains committed to the resettlement of Afghans in Australia, especially of those who assisted Australian operations in Afghanistan, as we should. On behalf of the coalition, I reaffirm our strong bipartisan support for this important and ongoing resettlement effort. Most importantly, despite the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we, like those friends and allies around the world who value democracy, freedom and human rights, especially the rights of women and girls, remain committed to working in a bipartisan way with the government here in Australia and with the international community to respond to the humanitarian needs of the people of Afghanistan. This continuing effort is critical. As this motion notes, the Taliban has stripped freedoms from the citizens of Afghanistan. It has clawed back the educational opportunities for young girls and women. The Taliban has stripped away 20 years of progress as it engages in violence and repression. The United Nations, in its report Human rights in Afghanistan, released in July this year, noted that in the first 10 months after the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban 'the erosion of women's rights has been one of the most notable aspects of the de facto administration'. The United Nations Acting Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan, Markus Potzel, said: The relegation of women and girls to the home denies Afghanistan the benefit of the significant contributions they have to offer. During the period of time in which peace, stability, freedoms and democracy were sought to be achieved in Afghanistan, the advances made and the opportunities created for young women and girls across Afghanistan were perhaps the greatest achievements of many, and to see those advances now so eroded, the hopes and opportunities of those women and girls so crushed, is unquestionably one of the most depressing aspects of all we have seen in the last 12 months. Despite all the promises made by the Taliban in August last year, we have seen the end of so many gains that came to be held dearly by the Afghan people, including the right, the freedom, of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. Dissent has been curtailed through crackdowns on protest and by the curbing of media freedoms. These are freedoms we in Australia are fortunate enough to be able to take for granted. However, the events we've seen unfold in Afghanistan since 15 August 2021 are a reminder that such freedoms can never be taken for granted by those who enjoy them. Extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and ill-treatment, along with human rights abuses, have, as the UN has noted, sadly become the norm in Afghanistan over the past year. The Amnesty International report Death in slow motion, released in July this year, reported that 95 per cent of the Afghan population does not have enough food to eat. It is appropriate therefore that Australia implement the United Nations Security Council Taliban sanctions regime into Australian law and apply those sanctions in efforts to promote peace, stability and security of Afghanistan. It is appropriate that Australia rightly be a significant contributor to the humanitarian aid effort in Afghanistan. In April this year, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, announced an additional $40 million in aid in 2022. This was in addition to $100 million announced in September 2021. This was announced just after the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban. It was following and alongside the implementation of those UN sanctions. This aid is crucial and ongoing support to ensure that we deliver aid and assistance to where it is needed and that we deliver the humanitarian support and assistance across the wide range—the almost insurmountable range—of needs faced by the Afghan people. Through this motion today, we also recognise the important role of the Afghan diaspora in Australia. We're all, in this place, well aware, I'm sure, that connections between Australia and Afghanistan go back a long, long way—to the 1860s, when the first Afghan cameleers arrived in Australia, playing their role in the development of our remote inland. Today, more than 40,000 people born in Afghanistan, most of whom have arrived since the war in their homeland began, are part of a community which makes a significant contribution to Australia. That community is growing, with more than 31,500 visa places being made available over four years to Afghan nationals through our humanitarian program and family stream. That was a decision announced by the coalition government in the last budget. It's one which I note, and I encourage the current government to maintain their efforts to ensure full delivery of those places. This motion is a tangible demonstration that we should never give up in standing up for the rights of Afghans, that we should never forget the battles they face and the challenges they face, that we should not grow apathetic or tired of focusing on those needs and pressures. We must continue to work to uphold the rights of all Afghans, especially women and girls and minorities groups who have suffered so much over the past year with little hope in sight for the future. We must call on the Taliban to honour the commitments they made and to be true to the words they gave in relation to the rights of Afghans and, in particular, Afghan women and girls. We must be strong in our own position and urge all other nations of the world to apply the same pressure to the Taliban to reverse the type of erosion of rights they have undertaken. We must not allow Afghanistan to become once more a safe haven for terrorists and their support networks. We have seen all too starkly what can happen when the Taliban believes it can act with impunity. In speaking to this motion, I want to reiterate the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said on the anniversary date: The tragedy of August 2021 does not detract from 20 years of service and sacrifice which denied al-Qaeda a safe haven, inhibited the terrorist organisation's ability to plan operations, and prevented attacks being conducted on Australian soil or elsewhere around the world. It is important to reiterate that point because, for those who may feel that what was undertaken through those years in Afghanistan was wasted effort, it is important to remember the achievements that did occur and were made and what we continue to fight for. With this motion today, we stand with Afghanistan. We stand with the people of Afghanistan. We must and will remain steadfast in our determination to see the people of Afghanistan achieve their hopes for a peaceful, free future of opportunity and equality. 12:44 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to support the motion and to reflect on the one-year anniversary of the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. Just over a year ago, we were seeing heartbreaking images of desperate Afghan people trying to flee the Taliban regime. There are horrible, heart-wrenching accounts of that terrifying ordeal, including by many Afghan refugees who have now settled in Australia. I won't share the full graphic account, but I do want to quote from one Afghan refugee, Noor M Ramazan, who says: After 20 years, everything in Afghanistan was back to where it began. After years of waiting, hoping and dreaming about our country, we were leaving our belongings, family and friends. Everyone remembered the first time the Taliban came. The ones who were young and didn't remember heard from elders. We all knew who Taliban were. That's why everyone wanted to be the first to leave. All our belongings were on our back and we were running for life. Celebrities were running, politicians were running, we were running and everyone was running. Elderly people were out of breath, children were trampled and some died, but still everyone was running to go. Some of those people who sought safety in the chaos around the airport made it to Australia, but many remain in Afghanistan in dire circumstances. I want to acknowledge the effort of all MPs and their officers, including my Greens colleagues and my own office manager at the time, for going above and beyond to expedite the safe passage of so many Afghanis to Australia. I'm sure that many of us and our officers did that, and I acknowledge the former government's efforts to collectively co-ordinate that effort and to evacuate over 4,000 Afghanis. But there are still people stuck there who are not safe. This is far from over. Women and girls once again face oppression and minorities like the Hazara people live in fear. Many have been killed in the last year by bombings, some of which amount to war crimes. A few weeks ago, a group of UN special rapporteurs and other experts issued a statement warning that the human rights situation would continue to deteriorate. They said: Since August 2021, we have seen a plethora of human rights violations committed by the Taliban, with their virtual erasure and systematic oppression of women and girls from society being particularly egregious. Nowhere else in the world has there been as wide-spread, systematic and all-encompassing an attack on the rights of women and girls—every aspect of their lives is being restricted under the guise of morality and through the instrumentalization of religion. Discrimination and violence cannot be justified on any ground. Regrettably, there is little or no sign that the human rights situation is turning a corner. Indeed, the daily reports of violence—including extra-judicial killings, disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, heightened risks of exploitation faced by women and girls including for the purposes of child and forced marriage, and a breakdown in the rule of law—gives us no confidence that the Taliban has any intention of making good on its pledge to respect human rights. Australia cannot and must not forget these people. We have a moral obligation, and that starts with telling the truth—to ourselves and to people in Afghanistan—about why it was that Australian troops were deployed. Prime Minister Howard at the time, without recourse to parliament, put us into that war and took us directly into that conflict. Part of our truth-telling about why we sent troops to Afghanistan must also be a reckoning about our treatment of whistleblowers. Julian Assange has faced incredible injustice and torture in response to his simple act of sharing the truth of what was happening in Afghanistan and why troops were deployed there. The fundamental injustice and lack of transparency around the deployment of Australian troops to Afghanistan has tainted our treatment of whistleblowers. This is why the Greens have called for decisions to commit Australian troops to war to be made by parliament, openly and with debate. Given the wide-ranging and long-lasting impacts of war, these decisions demand parliamentary scrutiny, international cooperation and development and respect for human rights. As well as telling the truth about why Australian troops were deployed, we must also be honest about what has occurred while they were deployed. We owe that honesty to Afghan civilians and to ourselves as a nation. That includes acknowledging and mourning the 41 Australian soldiers who lost their lives, as well as the horrifyingly high number of civilians killed in Afghanistan by Western forces and their allies. Thousands of Afghan civilians were killed by coalition forces, including by air strikes. There have been serious and credible allegations that crimes were committed by Australian Forces. Those perpetrators must be brought to justice and the evidence must be made public. We must also be honest about the evacuation of Kabul and the fall of the Afghan government. Some people were able to make it to the airport and through the throngs of people. Many more died, either in the chaos and violence around the airport or subsequently. We know that there were locally engaged employees who worked with Australian Forces who have not been able to leave Afghanistan or find a place of safety. A few weeks ago The Guardian published accounts from some of those left behind, and I quote: I worked for Dfat in Afghanistan for five years. At the request of my Dfat colleagues, I submitted an application for Dfat's certification. But since August 2021, Dfat has been saying my application for ministerial approval is still under consideration. It has taken more than a year, and I wonder what makes my case different from others. The Taliban have executed two colleagues I worked with at USAID. I feel I will be next. I remember family members warning me to stay away from international organisations when I worked for the Australian government, lest I be left behind and betrayed. Now, I am reminded of what I was told. I gather I should have worked for someone else as the Australians have closed the door on my face. The simple reality is that decisions made by ministers of the Australian government cost lives, both of Australian soldiers and Afghan civilians, and have had a devastating impact on the lives of those who remain. We also need to be conscious of the impact of this war on veterans. The Brereton report and the evidence to the royal commission into veteran suicide have all revealed the high toll of war. We need to make amends to personnel and civilians who have experienced harm, through reparations and psychological and wellbeing supports for serving personnel and veterans. Violent wars are failing everyone. We have seen it in Vietnam and now Afghanistan. We must find peaceful, non-violent solutions to increasing international tensions. Australia played a significant role in a 20-year war that failed to create a lasting peace, and for which we face allegations of war crimes. The war was not the solution to the problems that Afghanistan faced in 2001. We did not succeed in building robust institutions or in working with the Afghani people to bring about lasting change. Australia's actions contributed to the growing threat to many Afghan people from the Taliban, and we have a moral obligation to provide sanctuary for some of the people who will suffer as a result. The fall of Kabul a year ago was an appalling culmination of two decades of failure by the invading forces. Now we must continue to do whatever we can to support the Afghani people, to remove from harm those who need that help and to make sure that the rights of citizens are upheld. A year ago the Greens called for the Australian government to provide immediate assistance to Afghan people on the ground in Afghanistan and by providing protection here in Australia. We called for Australia to offer permanent protection visas to up to 20,000 people from Afghanistan who were at risk of persecution from the Taliban. We called for those places to be an addition to our regular humanitarian intake and to include protection for people like female leaders, human rights advocates, LGBTIQ+ people, alumni of Australian universities, journalists, Afghan government workers and people from ethnic and religious minorities previously persecuted by the Taliban. We welcome the genuinely additional 16,500 places that have been announced, but it still falls short of the 20,000 that we called for, and we still think there is room for the government to do more. Those additional places should be rolled out as needed rather than arbitrarily spread over four years. Afghan citizens on temporary visas in Australia must also be offered protection in Australia with permanent visas. Given the confusion and chaos that faced many leaving Afghanistan, we believe that all 449s issued to Afghan nationals should be honoured and reissued if necessary. The government should immediately offer temporary bridging visas to any Afghan people who worked to support Australian defence forces or consular officers so that they can come to safety in Australia while their claims for asylum are assessed. Australia must also commit significant additional aid funding to Afghanistan, as a matter of urgency, in the order of at least $100 million per year, disbursed to aid organisations working on the ground who have strong connections with local communities and civil society. Australia must act as a good global citizen and do what we can to support people on the ground, especially women and girls, who face a huge curtailing of their rights living through this dire situation. Australia must do its utmost to pick up the pieces and support the people of Afghanistan and the diaspora in Australia. 12:54 Senator 300707 Western Australia PAYMAN () (): I note this is not my first speech. I rise as an Australian Afghan to express my support for the motion commemorating the one-year anniversary of a sad day, 15 August, the day when Kabul fell to the Taliban yet again. A nation has been torn by war, destroyed over decades of conflict and left in a state of destitution. A land is prominently rich in natural resources such as lithium, iron, zinc and copper, yet the economy remains depleted. The country was a busy section of the famous Silk Road, a route that merchants have travelled for over 2000 years from China, India and Europe. This is the reason Afghanistan earned the title 'crossroads of cultures', with a population of 35 million people, 34 provinces and a range of diverse languages spoken, from Dari and Pashto to Uzbek, Hazaragi, Baluchi, Pashayi and Nurestani, just to name a few. During the last year we have seen the deterioration of human rights and the growing humanitarian crisis, leaving thousands in poverty and resulting in ongoing problems with security and governance. We have seen schools shut down for girls. According to a recent UN report: Women and girls in particular have been subjected to severe restrictions on their human rights, resulting in their exclusion from most aspects of everyday and public life. Unemployment has increased dramatically, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee to neighbouring countries, but millions of Afghans remain stranded, with no hope in sight of a future for themselves or their families. We are still hearing reports of the Taliban persecuting and torturing members of the previous government, while thousands of people from different ethnic groups whose opinions were against the Taliban have been killed and labelled as ISIS. We cannot let Afghanistan become a breeding ground for terrorism and extremism. We find ourselves here today marking one year on from the fall of Kabul, and I want to extend my deepest condolences and prayers to the people of Afghanistan and the diaspora communities across Australia, who are suffering and in pain and feeling the trauma. I too have family back in Afghanistan and receive daily news of the atrocities and injustices that take place, while their lives remain in danger and their children remain stranded at home, with no access to education or any prospect of a sustainable future. It is heartbreaking, and my sincerest thoughts go out to everyone with family and friends in Afghanistan going through this ongoing devastation and to the veterans and their loved ones scarred by the pain and trauma. I wish upon you healing and closure. I have come to understand that in the plight of these challenges, unity is so important. There is no such thing as a minority group in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the atrocities and destruction alone. Whether you identify as Tajik, Uzbek, Pashtun or Hazara you are experiencing the same pain and heartache as millions of people in Afghanistan and abroad. I am aware of the unspoken division that exists among the ethnicities within the Afghan diaspora here in Australia. At times like this your unity is needed more than ever. Bond over your identities as Australians first, then as Muslims and then as Afghans. There is no need to ostracise, criticise or have animosity towards one another because of what history had determined. History teaches us many lessons and the people to pay tribute to, so I would like to take a moment and acknowledge the brave contribution and sacrifices made by more than 39,000 Australian Defence Force and civilian personnel, who supported operations in Afghanistan for over 20 years. Australia contributed in capacity building, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and national security. We remember the 41 Australian soldiers who died during operations and will never forget their ultimate sacrifice. The fall of Kabul led to one of Australia's largest humanitarian evacuations and, over a nine-day period, around 4,100 people were evacuated on 32 fights. The work to ensure safe departures from Afghanistan continues. The Albanese government is committed to standing by those who helped Australia, including by supporting former locally engaged employees to apply for visas and resettle in Australia. The government is considering its response to recommendations from the Senate inquiry into Australia's engagement in Afghanistan. Australia is working with the international community to respond to the humanitarian crisis and has committed $141 million to ensure that help reaches those most in need, whether it be emergency medical supplies, food supplies or simply a safe place to get some rest. Australia will also offer 31,500 places to Afghan nationals under the humanitarian program and the family stream of the migration program over the next four years. We understand the urgency and nature of this crisis, and we in Australia are doing our best. I now want to talk about something that has made this devastating crisis in Afghanistan even more heartbreaking for those impacted and for those like me who are from Afghanistan and now calling Australia home. We know that the former Liberal-National government were responsible for countless scandals and cuts to our public institutions, and one of the most disgraceful examples of this is the broken system of visa and citizenship processing. They destroyed that system bit by bit, firing thousands of staff over their decade in power, and it has caused human misery and economic pain. The economic pain is obvious now, with small businesses, the health system and the education sector crying out for visas to be processed, while the delays mean other countries who haven't destroyed their own visa systems race ahead. All of this is obvious, and we saw some progress made at the Jobs and Skills Summit last weekend, which is amazing. But I want to focus on the human element, often forgotten but just as important. Every day my office hears from those with loved ones trying to flee the Taliban or from those who have been hunted down. I cannot describe the insurmountable pain and misery we hear about day after day, and, while we should not lay the blame at the feet of the former government, it is true that countless visas for those trying to flee the Taliban did not get processed in time because the system had been so thoroughly destroyed. It is now our responsibility to fix this. It will take time to fix the 10 years of destruction, but we will and I will keep speaking up. I'm heartened by the work already begun and that the minister has confirmed processing the visa backlog is an urgent priority. There is also important work to be done in our platform, like giving genuine refugees permanent protection in this country and moving them off the cruel temporary protection visa scheme. The Labor government will fix things. It will take time, but it will happen. It is easy to break things, and the former government took pride in destroying the system and so have caused immeasurable pain for countless families. Just like with a house destroyed by a natural disaster, it can happen instantly, but the rebuilding can take months. This is what we are facing right now, trying to repair the visa system. Like I said, it will take time to clear the backlog, but we have started the work and are committed to seeing this through. Thank you. 13:04 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak in support of this motion. So often in this chamber we talk about statistics, we talk about numbers, but we don't always talk about people. What I'd like to talk about today, in support of this motion, is the last 20 years of my life. While I didn't serve in Afghanistan, what happened in Afghanistan in 2001, and subsequently through to this year, has been a reoccurring theme in my life. I would like to share that with the chamber today, because I believe it reflects the disservice but also the support of so many Australians. Unlike what we've just heard in the chamber from previous speakers, I believe how Australia responded to the world trade towers, the Pentagon and all the aircraft that were downed during all those attacks right through to today shows the best of Australians. Our response over that 20 years shows us that Australia is a strong nation. We are a compassionate nation and we are good people. We are generous and we are welcoming. My journey with Afghanistan started with the bombing of the world trade towers. I was Chief of Staff to the Minister for Justice and Customs at the time. If you will recall, the Prime Minister was actually in Washington on the day. Like everybody in this chamber who is old enough to remember that footage and those events we watched with horror and incredulity at the images of those passenger aircraft deliberately being flown into towers, into the Pentagon and into the ground. As we gathered here in the building to assess what it all meant, the first question for us all was: where is our Prime Minister? Is he alive and is he safe? Once we had ascertained that it quickly pivoted to being all about the response. What do we need to do for Australia? What do we need to do with our like-minded partners globally? Just to remind people of the impacts, nearly 3,000 people from many, many nations were killed on that day and that included 10 Australians. Very quickly, on 14 September Australia invoked Article IV of the ANZUS treaty. For the following 20 years we conducted two operations in Afghanistan continuously. The first, from November 2001 to December 2014, was Operation Slipper. That was followed by Operation Highroad, from January 2015 to mid-2021—when the last of our ADF personnel withdrew from Afghanistan. In total, over those nearly 20 years, 39,000 of our service men and women—full-time, part-time, Army, Air Force and Navy—served in Afghanistan and also in support of those who were actually in country in Afghanistan. At its peak of our military deployment we had 1,500 personnel based there at any one time. Tragically, we also lost 41 Australian service personnel, personnel who came home in coffins to grieving families. As a nation we will always commemorate their service and thank their families and support their families, who still grieve to this day. Tens of thousands of Afghan citizens also lost their lives over those 20 years. Two hundred and sixty Australians returned home seriously wounded and many thousands more returned home with injuries that weren't as visible, with mental health issues that are still with many of them today. I think Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham very eloquently summed up the impact over the last 12 months of the return of the Taliban. I think it is worth reflecting on a few things and asking us the question: was it really all worth it? I would say absolutely, yes, it was worth it. The Taliban have a strategy that it is encapsulated in the saying, 'You have the watches and we have the time,' which reflects their strategy of waiting out foreign forces in their nation. That is clearly what we saw 12 months ago. So was it worth it? I know that is something considered by many service personnel who have returned home—including service personnel with lifelong wounds—and their family members. As I said, I believe that it was. Have a look at what was achieved while the coalition forces were there. The proportion of girls attending secondary school rose from six per cent to well over 40 per cent. The proportion of boys attending secondary school rose from 18 per cent to over 70 per cent. Female literacy in 15- to 24-year-olds rose from 11 per cent in 2001 to 56 per cent. Male literacy in the same age group rose from 46 per cent to 74 per cent. Women, who'd previously been banned from higher education under the Taliban 20 years ago, comprised over 30 per cent of university students. Coming through to subsequent circumstances, while I didn't serve in Afghanistan it was a recurring theme in my career and my life. I had the privilege as the Minister for Defence to visit Operation Highroad in 2019 and to meet the many men and women who were serving there in conditions where there were still clearly threats. There were still attacks on our accommodation and it was still very dangerous flying in and flying out of Kabul. But they were there. They were in high spirits and they could see the difference they were making every single day. And they were so proud of what they were doing in the community for community development: the schools they'd built; the people they'd educated—the service personnel, the carpenters, the builders and the girls. They made a lasting and enduring difference. On this upcoming anniversary I hope that all of our service personnel—the 39,000—will remember the great things they did. Coming back to almost one year ago today, the Taliban, true to their word—we had the clocks and they had the time—returned. We've heard here today the devastating impacts and consequences of that. What shows the best of Australians is that we joined with so many other like-minded countries to form an airbridge out of Hamid Karzai International Airport. We had 32 flights out of Hamid Karzai in the most challenging and difficult of circumstances, and we evacuated over 4,000 Afghan nationals during that time—part of the 80,000 in total who were airlifted by other like-minded countries during that period. Like many people in this chamber, and many people we know throughout this building and in the other place, many of us were working furiously to try and get out a whole range of people who needed to be evacuated. I would like to share with the chamber the story of 16 of those 4,000 people who were evacuated in the most traumatic, difficult circumstances out of Hamid Karzai airport. On 15 August I sent a message to my friend, Shukria Barakzai. Shukria had been an underground teacher under the Taliban and an MP in the Afghan parliament. She was also the survivor of a Taliban suicide attack, an experience she emerged from alive but terribly scarred mentally and physically. I contacted her, knowing she was still in Kabul, and asked her what I could do and did she need any help to get out because her life was clearly in great danger. She said to me, 'No, I will be fine, but there are others who you need to help.' One of them, she said, was a young, outspoken journalist whose name was Khalid Amiri, who she said was in immense trouble, and was facing death threats from the Taliban. She said he needed to be removed from Afghanistan so that some of the young voices—some of those young Afghans who had been educated and who are very supportive of a modern, free and democratic Afghanistan—could come out so that they could still have their voices heard. On Twitter I contacted Khalid, having never met him or communicated with him before. That started an extraordinary chain of events which again mirrored so many others. Foreign minister Marise Payne and her staff were working 24/7 on evacuating. Can I now just acknowledge then minister Payne and also her staff, who did an extraordinary job to coordinate the activities, as did the minister for immigration, to get the visas and to get many of these people out. Khalid and his family were under threat, and he was terrified. He had four sisters living at home with him, all of whom had been educated and were professional young women. He also had a married sister and a brother who each had their own children—between them, four daughters and a son—and they were all under immediate threat. I now have hundreds of WhatsApp messages about how we could get them visas, how we could get them quickly, and how we could get them to safety. It was an extraordinary time. They got the visas, they left their home, they put on women's clothes so they wouldn't be identified. We tried to get them through the Taliban checkpoints into the French embassy. That didn't succeed. They then moved to Abbey Gate. Everybody has seen those pictures of thousands and thousands of people trying to get through Abbey Gate and over the fences. They were very tense days and hours. But then I got a text message from Khalid as I was leaving this chamber, after I hadn't heard from him for hours. He sent me a photo from right on the wall at Abbey Gate, and I could see two marines sitting there on the gates with other people around. I asked Khalid to give his phone to the marine to see whether an Australian voice would help the marine help him and his family through to the Australian evacuation point. Wonderfully, this marine, whose name I cannot mention but who has been thanked, came on the phone. There was this Australian voice who asked him to take my word that these people had Australian visas, and he did. He took Khalid, his mother and father and four of his sisters to the Australian collection point. Then the rest of the process as it unfolded: Khalid and his family got on the C-17 at Al Minhad Air Base with the Australian soldiers, and then through to Howard Springs and to Melbourne. Wonderfully, his brother and sister and their families are now also reunited with them in Melbourne. They will be extraordinary Australians. It is the stories of the 16 members of the Amiri family plus everybody else who we were able to get out and who we are supporting today. They, along with the other 80,000, are the future of Afghanistan. It is our great hope that they will be able to return to Afghanistan and that the Taliban will once again fall. In the meantime, they are here in Australia. The girls are studying. They will be great contributors to the Australian economy. Their nieces in particular will have a very different future. Whether they become Australian citizens and stay here, or whether they are able to return to Afghanistan, I think they demonstrate that it was worth it. I hope that in those stories, and in the stories of every other Afghan who has been ripped from their nation and has come to Australia or gone elsewhere, our service men and women and the families of those who were killed will find great solace. 13:19 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Today marks—and we mark as a Senate—one year since the fall of Kabul and the end of the war in Afghanistan. For the people of Afghanistan, the time between the invasion of their nation and that moment when the last plane took off from the tarmac of Kabul airport marked two decades wherein the tyranny of a regime guilty of horrendous human rights abuses was replaced by the shadow of occupation. As we as a parliament reflect on the one-year anniversary since the end of that war, we must do so actively, seeking to take responsibility, seeking to offer apology and seeking to translate apology into urgent action. Let's be really clear. In entering into the war in Afghanistan alongside the United States, Australia committed a terrible mistake, a mistake of judgement, which led to the death of tens of thousands and the harm of so many more. Our failure in those moments in the aftermath of 9/11 to confront our American friends calmly but firmly and demand that the global action taken in response to those events be proportionate and within the boundaries of international law, and clear in its purpose, cost the lives not only of Australian serving personnel but of so many Afghans. We poured away life, we poured away resources and we took so much from the Afghan people during this war, which came on the back of so many decades of occupation by foreign powers. In doing this, we made the justification to ourselves that we were supporting invasion and occupation in order to liberate the people of Afghanistan from tyranny. Yet not once in all of those decades did we reflect upon the fact that our ally in that cause, the United States, was to its very core one of the key reasons for the existence of the tyrannical regime which was the Taliban in the 1990s. Never was there a moment to own and reflect on the reality that it was American support of the mujaheddin during the Soviet-Afghan War that gave birth to the Taliban. From this space of ignorance and unwillingness to work collectively and within the boundaries of international law to react to the events of 9/11, we ended up staying alongside the United States in an occupation which did incredible damage to the Afghan people, undermined institutions and left a legacy of destruction and division which they will have to manage for generations to come. We not only perpetrated this damage in our entry and our occupation; we then after 20 years exited in one of the most diabolically mishandled, fundamentally inhumane moments in Australian political history, leaving behind countless people who, despite our presence alongside occupying forces which daily took the lives of Afghans, and despite the fact that our special forces, the 'red beards', took the lives of—murdered—innocent civilians and disabled Afghans, worked with our forces in an attempt to build something better. We left them behind. We failed them, proving in that moment that our so-called dedication to the people of Afghanistan had never been much more than a political spin; proving that it didn't even go skin deep, because, when things got tough, we got out and we left them. And what have we left them in? We have left them in a humanitarian disaster which we contributed to. I would like to read to the Senate just a few of the stories of individuals who are right now in Kabul and throughout Afghanistan living in the ruins that we left behind, trying to rebuild their lives in the chaos. Ansar, an IT officer in Kabul, sent to my yesterday the following words: Life in Afghanistan is a burden, something to just bear. Neither do we have human rights nor civic rights, we are deprived of all basic rights. Every day that goes by, life under Taliban rule breaks my spirit and weakens my consciousness. We feel abandoned and on our own. I inform the Senate that, in the next passage, I will be making reference to issues of suicide and sexual violence, but I feel it is necessary. This comes from an individual who has experienced these crimes firsthand on the ground: There have been reports of girls and women being detained and then raped in prisons. In the last few days, there was widespread coverage of the case of a girl who was first detained and then raped by a prominent Taliban commander. The victim's name is Elaha and the perpetrators name is Saeed Khosty, who forced the girl to marry him. Saeed was constantly beating and torturing her. Then Saeed divorced her, claiming she made blasphemous comments and that he has evidence. There is now concern that she will be tried for blasphemy. If proven, and this may be through coercion, she may face death. It has been well reported that women's employment and access to education have become extraordinarily limited under the return of the Taliban regime, as it has been reported that women are unable to move without the presence of a male companion. Human rights abuses of the most heinous nature are reported daily, and it is incumbent upon us as a nation to take our share of responsibility, as the reality is that these crimes are being perpetrated, because for 20 years, instead of working with the people of Afghanistan, as we should have done, to rebuild and to address the issues facing their nation, we sat alongside occupying forces for political reasons—and then we left for political reasons. And we have now seen fit as a nation to cast ourselves free of even the thought of the people of Afghanistan. I once again reiterate the Greens call for emergency humanitarian intakes to ensure that those who served and supported the work that was done are brought to safety; for accountability for those who, during the war, committed such heinous crimes against the people of Afghanistan; and so to accountability for those officials and members of government who, in the full knowledge of the imminent evacuation of Kabul, failed to get those people to safety. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator Steele-John, time for debate on this motion has expired, but you will be in continuance. I now proceed to two-minute statements. Australian National Flag 31 13:30 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland It is disappointing that MPs from the Greens choose not to fly our Australian flag. The new member for Ryan, Elizabeth Watson-Brown, has one of our country's largest Army barracks in her electorate, yet she refuses to fly our flag. In doing so, she brings shame to this parliament, she brings shame to the memory of all those who have served and died under our flag and she shames the families who mourn. I wonder what those who serve at the Enoggera Army barracks think of her childish antics, along with all those in Ryan who love and respect our country, because, when we think about symbols of national pride—symbols which we can unite behind, symbols under which our country men and women have fought, symbols which galvanise us as one Australian people—our flag is front and centre. It has been and will always be a shared symbol of national pride and unity, one which we all know and love and respect. We fly our great flag in this chamber to remind us of the people we serve. We fly our flag at schools to remind the next generation of what it means to be Australian. We fly our flags at RSLs out of respect for those who have fought and died to protect the freedoms that we so willingly use today. I fly the flag at home in Warwick because I love this country. Shame upon these Greens, upon these leftists who hate Australia and hate the freedoms that we all enjoy so much today, because this flag represents the great Australian dream: freedom and democracy. Our flag is sacred. Our flag is cherished. It is owned and adored by Australians all, and we love it. Shame on the Greens. Workplace Relations: Qantas 31 13:32 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Jobs and Skills Summit was a meeting of our nation's best and brightest. However, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce was also there. Mr Joyce has decided it isn't enough that he's ruined our national airline with his extreme antiunion agenda; he wants to weigh in on our national industrial relations system as well. Mr Joyce has attacked the tripartite agreement reached on multiemployer bargaining by saying: 'What you don't want is the pendulum swinging too far in either direction on industrial relations.' If you want to see how far the pendulum has swung towards employers, just look at Alan Joyce's Qantas, a company which illegally sacked 2,000 workers and replaced them with an outsourced workforce so underpaid that they can't fill the jobs, a company which took a $2 billion handout from the Morrison government and then announced a $400 million share buyback the very next year, a company which threatened that it would rip up its flight attendants' agreement and give them a pay cut of up to 50 per cent. This is what a flight attendant told me about Alan Joyce's conduct: 'I have found myself breaking down, to the point I had to seek medical and professional help.' And a Qantas baggage handler said: 'It is like walking on broken glass every day every week, not knowing when you're going to get cut'. Alan Joyce has the audacity to complain about workers getting too many rights. He should resign. The fact that the opposition is taking Alan Joyce's side in this matter is simply a disgrace. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 31

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022

13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Today I will be tabling a private member's bill that creates a climate trigger in our environment laws. This is essential if we are to ensure that any project being assessed by the environment minister does indeed look at the climate damage that it causes. How can it be that in 2022 we can have environmental approval being granted to a big new coal mine expansion or a gas field or any other big project without any consideration of the climate damage that that project might cause, including to our environment? We know that Australia's environment is in crisis. We are facing species collapse. Yet time and time again projects are being given the green light by the nation's environment minister without any consideration of the climate damage that is being done to our environment. In 2005, when he held the environment portfolio for the Labor Party, Mr Anthony Albanese introduced laws that did exactly this. Back in 2005 Mr Albanese said that there was a gap in our environment laws that needed to be closed. There is still a gap in our environment laws and it does need to be closed. We need to get serious about reducing pollution in this country, about halting dangerous global warming and about protecting our environment. A climate trigger is one of the most important things to be done to make sure we put a halt to climate destruction and environmental collapse and to put our country on a better path that looks after nature and doesn't destroy it. (Time expired) International Day of Charity 32 13:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Today we celebrate the great work that the 60,000 charities that operate in Australia do for our community. Indeed, we celebrate the almost 4,000 of them in my home state of Western Australia. When we think about charity, we think about community, we think about volunteerism, we think about philanthropy. So today I'm delighted to acknowledge that this is the International Day of Charity. We know that, whether it is natural disasters, humanitarian crisis or even pandemic, charity and the giving of others in service of the community stands out as a great achievement not just for our community but for humanity. The practice of being charitable is felt daily by millions of people across the world, and today we celebrate that. This is the 10th anniversary of International Day of Charity. It is the 10th anniversary because this is the day that we mark the death of Mother Teresa, a great symbol of the good and important work done by charitable people across the globe. Many of us will recall that in 1979 she received the Nobel Peace Prize 'for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitutes a threat to peace'. So today, as we go about our work, as we acknowledge the great contributions that are made in our community across our nation and across the world, let us take a moment to acknowledge, appreciate and pay tribute to the International Day of Charity. Waverley Mills 32 13:38 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Labor outlined during the election campaign a holistic plan to deliver for Tasmania. Part of this strategy was to bring back manufacturing and, with it, more secure local jobs. Originally established in 1874, Waverley Mills is the oldest working textile mill in Australia. It produces high-quality wool products and is a hallmark of our ability to make things locally. To boost the longevity of this historic site, the Albanese government will invest $6 million to preserve the mill and improve safety, transforming the site into a state-of-the-art facility at the forefront of sustainable wool and other cloth recycling. Once completed, the project will support 120 ongoing jobs. It is a demonstration of Labor's commitment to bringing more jobs in manufacturing back to northern Tasmania. In line with our commitment to boost the skills of northern Tasmanians, the upgraded mill will also support new training opportunities through its collaboration with local industry and tertiary institutions. Not only will this redevelopment enhance jobs in manufacturing, the upgrade will also unlock new potential for the site as a tourism destination. Our wall products are world renowned, and I'm sure tourists will flock to the site to experience its rich history and see how our fine products are made. The next decade should be one where we really make things here at home again with Australian workers, Australian resources and Australian ingenuity. By backing the woollen mills, we are supporting this aspiration at a local level. I'm excited to work closely with the Hon. Ed Husic, Minister for Industry and Science, and ensure the delivery of this project on time and in full, unlike the previous government, who failed to deliver jobs in Tasmania and who failed to deliver for and support our local economy. Jobs and Skills Summit 32 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Two minutes is more than enough to review Labor's Jobs and Skills Summit. Allowing pensioners and student visa holders to earn more will help small businesses in the city and in the bush. This has been One Nation policy for some time. Forty billion dollars in development funding through to 2030? Five billion dollars a year sounds good until we realise that private investment spending in Australia in 2022-23 alone will be $143 billion. Five billion dollars is a drop in the bucket—just enough to provide the Labor Party with endless media and photo opportunities. This was the best opportunity in years to talk about growing our employment base—mining, agriculture and manufacturing—value-adding and creating breadwinner jobs. Opportunity not taken! Of the delegates, 25 per cent—one-quarter—were union bosses. Yet there was no tangible job creation that might benefit union members. It's no wonder Red Unions are booming! What did come out of the summit? Additional vocational training places—for jobs that don't exist; preferential employment schemes for women and Aboriginals—for jobs that don't exist; 195,000 new migrants every year—for jobs that don't exist. How will our crumbling healthcare system provide for all these new arrivals? Victoria is treating patients in tents and Queensland in the back of ambulances. Where will the housing come from when 100,000 Australians are homeless and that rate is rising? Rental prices are up by 18 per cent this year alone. Inflation is six per cent and on its way to 10 per cent. Life for everyday Australians is getting very hard very quickly. Labor will make all of these things worse, with increased immigration adding more pressure on health and housing while diluting the power of workers. That will reduce workers' wages and living conditions even further. Just who are Labor working for? We have one flag. We are one community. One Nation is now the workers' party. Superannuation 33 13:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales On Friday afternoon, the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, made a regulation which will exempt super funds from disclosing the payments they make to unions. I've lodged a freedom-of-information request to understand how this regulation was made and upon what basis it was made. Now, $35 million will be paid from super funds to unions by 2030, which is a huge amount of money. This is how money is washed from the super funds into the Labor Party. Donations are generally not made directly to the Labor Party; they're made through these unions. Thirty-five million bucks by 2030 is a lot of money. They'd run a lot of campaigns on that basis. We know that Treasury did not recommend these changes. The FOI request should shed some light on why these regs were made, who gave advice on this issue and why on earth these payments are going to be aggregated and hidden from members. Of course, the old regulations, which were made by the former government, hadn't even been given a chance to see the light of day. These disclosures were cancelled in order to have this regulation aggregate the dollars that are being paid out of the super funds to the unions. Ultimately, now, the Senate will need to make a judgement about whether it will stand for transparency and integrity on the matter of compulsory super. I would have thought that, in a compulsory system established by this place, people should be able to see where their money is going. If it is being paid to a union or to any other organisation, people should be able to see that. It's all well and good for Mr Jones to say that he has required funds to disclose political donations, but the real money here is washed through the unions. I'm sure the FOI will shed great light on how in fact this policy was designed, which is a great shame to this parliament. Nuclear Weapons 33 13:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I've got just a couple of words to say to Senator Bragg about that—super theft! Ridding the world of nuclear weapons should be the goal of all countries that committed to a lasting global peace. It's absolute madness that in this day and age we have enough nuclear warheads to wipe out a significant proportion of the world's human population. A world free of nuclear weapons is a goal to which Australia is deeply committed, and the global community has made significant progress towards this goal, thanks to the non-proliferation treaty, or NPT. Despite the urgency for the international security environment, it is disappointing that the 10th review conference of the NPT did not reach a consensus outcome. All state parties, with the exception of Russia, were ready to agree to a meaningful and balanced outcome across the treaty's three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Russia's refusal to join this agreement has been a deliberate obstruction of progress towards nuclear non-proliferation. By obstructing progress, Russia's actions threaten global peace and security. While the outcome is disappointing Australia remains committed to the NPT, which continues to deliver tangible security benefits to the entire world. We should not allow Russia's intransigence to deter us from continuing to pursue the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. Australia of course continues to condemn Russia for their unprovoked and completely unjustified invasion of Ukraine, and calls on them to withdraw their forces immediately from Ukraine's territory. I would like to just quickly thank all the other state parties for their willingness to make a constructive contribution and find a way forward for peace. I also thank the delegates for their efforts, and in particular our Assistant Minister for Trade, Senator Ayres, who led the Australian delegation. (Time expired.) Tarkine Rainforest 33 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Any day now the federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, will decide the fate of a beautiful patch of ancient rainforest in the Tarkine—rainforest that it has been declared has World Heritage values and rainforest that is threatened by foreign-owned mining company MMG, who wish to build a toxic tailings dam in the middle of this beautiful, ancient and unprotected rainforest. I was lucky enough to visit this rainforest with my wife last weekend. I want to do a quick shout-out to the Bob Brown Foundation, who are doing tours for Tasmanians—in fact for any Australians who would like to go down and see this area that's threatened by foreign-owned mining company MMG. The only reason you can go down there and see this area is because 93 people protested to stop this destruction, and then were arrested. Then the Federal Court found that previous environment minister Sussan Ley had acted unlawfully by allowing the machines into this rainforest, by allowing the bulldozers and the excavators to go in there, without having properly assessed the environmental values of the area—in particular, the fact that the area is a breeding habitat for rare and critically endangered masked owls. Well that is now being considered, and I would strongly urge Ms Plibersek, the environment minister, to reject MMG's proposal to build a toxic tailings dam in this beautiful, unprotected rainforest. In fact I urge her to go a step further and actually put this up for World Heritage listing, which should have happened 15 years ago. This is one of the last tracts of temperate rainforests left in the world, and it's largely unprotected. It's still subject to threat from mining and from forestry. It would deliver a huge bounty of jobs and wealth for the region if we properly protected it. This is a really good opportunity for Labor to get some runs on the board and show Tasmanians they care about our wild areas. (Time expired.) Superannuation 34 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise today to speak of some flattering news. It turns out that the Labor Party has decided to copy the United Australia Party policy of bringing Australian super back home. This policy was one of many that we took to the election. Another one was lifting the ban on nuclear power, and I'm proud to say that the Liberal Party, my good friends over here to my right, have taken that one and they've run with it. Now I'm very flattered that the Labor Party wants to adopt our policy that was designed as a win/win for Australian super and the Australian people. Our policy would see Australian super funds incentivised to invest Australian super right here at home for nation-building projects that would benefit all Australians. At the moment, too much of our super is invested overseas, building the economies of Europe, America and others. Now super funds have around $3.5 trillion that could easily be used to grow our industries right here so that, at the and of the day, we don't need to rely on foreign capital to build our country. As always, the devil will be in the detail, and we need to make sure these funds are steered towards nation building. When I saw that the Labor Party had copied our policy, I smiled. The Treasurer was obviously paying close attention to our policies during the election campaign. In the political realm, when one political party steals another political party's policy, it should be taken as a compliment; after all, politicians will come and go, but good ideas will last forever. I do see the positive side because, at the end of the day, this policy, if it's done right, will benefit all Australians and it will help secure our economic prosperity and maintain our nation's independence. It is a clear form of political plagiarism. The UAP obviously have got the best ideas for growing Australia—after all, imitation is a sincere form of flattery—but plagiarism can be seen as theft. The difference between plagiarism and theft is acknowledgement. (Time expired) Australian National Flag 34 13:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I actually have been listening carefully to the two-minute statements being given in this chamber, and I decided to change my contribution during the course of the discussion. What prompted me to change my contribution was the contribution which Senator James McGrath made and the reaction it elicited from a number of Greens senators. I should state at the outset that it was not the Greens senators who are currently in the chamber but some of their colleagues who were in the chamber. Senator McGrath spoke about the fact that the MP for Ryan, Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, refuses to display the Australian flag in her electorate office. This was met with some mirth from the Greens senators who were sitting in this chamber. I say two things in relation to this point. If that is the view of the Australian Greens, then you go to the next election and you campaign on the basis of that view. Be honest with the people of Ryan and every other seat where you're seeking election. If that is your view, if that is the view of Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, then be truthful with the people of Ryan before election day so they can make a decision, make a judgement, on who represents their values the best. Be fair dinkum with the people of Ryan. Be honest with them. The second point I would make is that as I was listening and watching the mirth from the Greens senators, I was reminded of the famous words of one of my heroes, Senator Neville Bonner, the first Indigenous senator to represent Queensland in this place. He said, 'Look to unite us; don't pursue mere symbolism which seeks to divide us.' That represents what the Greens are doing in the seat of Ryan. Paid Parental Leave Scheme 34 13:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland One of the strongest, clearest messages coming from the Jobs and Skills Summit last week was the economic and social benefits of expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks. The Grattan Institute, The Parenthood, Chief Executive Women, the unions, the Business Council of Australia—everyone agreed that fairer paid parental leave will unlock women's workforce participation, will encourage more equitable sharing of care between parents and will give children the best start to life. Australia has one of the weakest parental leave schemes in the developed world, especially for fathers. There was unanimous support from summit participants for that to change, and yet paid parental leave was nowhere to be seen in the summit outcomes. Women are sick of making the case for change, hearing words of support, but seeing no action. The Greens went to the election with a fully costed plan for a fairer paid parental leave scheme that provides 26 weeks paid at replacement wage, capped to $100,000 pro rata, including superannuation, removing the rules that disadvantaged families where a woman is the higher earner, and creating effective incentives for both parents to share care right from the outset. If the government is serious about increasing women's workforce participation, it needs to do more than just nod sagely while a panel of expert women say these things; it needs to act. The experience in other countries puts beyond doubt that more equitable parental leave, coupled with free child care, improves women's workforce participation and helps shape the long-term sharing of care work. Use-it-or-lose-it provisions in Scandinavian countries saw a huge jump in the number of dads taking leave, and that fairer sharing of care has been sustained for more than a decade. In contrast, Australia's parental leave scheme tends to lock mums into the role of primary carer and the loss of work opportunities that comes with it. Fairer paid parental leave and free child care are no-brainers that benefit everyone. If this government had the guts to scrap the stage 3 tax cuts, we could easily afford them. Education 35 13:54 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia If you are a parent and a stranger approaches your child to tell them about safe sex, transgenderism, abortion and pornography, you'd probably call the police, or at least you'd intervene to protect your children. Yet, staggeringly, such people regularly visit our children's schools to give lectures on sexuality. In truth, these seminars are another injection of adult content into an already politicised school system, a school system which is tanking in the areas of maths and reading on a world scale. But the neo-Marxists in our school systems are determined to teach their radical gender theory and their extreme climate alarmism and to destigmatise every single sexual behaviour, imposing their world view onto our children and they don't want you to know about it. I am aware of at least one program of this kind in the South Australian school system covertly doing the rounds at the moment. Education departments assume that these so-called experts know what is best for our children, while most parents simply want their kids to learn how to read and write. The nuclear family is under attack from the school curriculum and the ideologues who are in command of it. Few people know that sex education was invented by the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs who, in the early 1990s, as deputy commissar for education, sought to break down family bonds by introducing radical and compulsory sex education into schools. This agenda is still being sold to parents today as helping kids make responsible choices but the point is simply to normalise and destigmatise adult concepts. Children deserve to be protected from a constant stream of adult concepts and parents deserve the right to raise their children with their own values. Do you know what your child is learning at school? If you don't, I suggest you take a closer look at their curriculum and then take an even closer look at some of the programs being brought into their classrooms. I suspect you may not like what you find. Jobs and Skills Summit 35 13:56 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Last week's Jobs and Skills Summit produced 36 immediate actions and about the same number of issues for further action. This was a historic collaborative process, and it is just the beginning. The Albanese Labor government will build a bigger, better trained and more skilled workforce. In the lead-up to the summit I held a series of roundtables across South Australia, including three in the upper Spencer Gulf, with community service organisations, Indigenous RTOs, student unions, education and training providers, not-for-profits, community leaders and a wide range of migrant communities. After nine years of neglect by the former government it is not surprising that a number of the issues that I heard across those 10 roundtables were very similar. There were common themes. The vocational education and training sector, which has long been the foundation of Australia's strong and vibrant community and a significant and essential part of our economy, has just been crippled. But what we saw last week at the Jobs and Skills Summit was an outcome, some concrete actions that are going to make a fundamental difference. When I met with people who were affected by the skilled migration issues they talked about all of the things that they could offer; all of the things that they could support our community with; and the delays, the challenges and the barriers that they were consumed by. I am pleased to say that the summit last week provided an outcome for them. Housing and community infrastructure was raised everywhere that I went. Securing a job can be very hard, particularly if you cannot find a place to live. You're not going to move to the place where the jobs are. Last week the Jobs and Skills Summit provided an outcome. (Time expired) Volunteers 36 13:58 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Volunteers are the life blood of our communities, and, while that statement might sound like a cliche, everyone in this chamber knows this to be true. Being part of a volunteer organisation brings an electric energy that nothing else can match. Having volunteered in a variety of organisations for over 40 years I know there is nothing else like it. Today, I wish to highlight the importance of volunteering to my home state of Tasmania and why it desperately needs our support. Tasmania thrives on its volunteer community. After recently visiting our major rural field day event Agfest, the power of the volunteer has never been more apparent. While the strength of volunteerism was on show throughout Agfest, the sad truth is volunteer rates in Tasmania and across the country are in decline. Volunteering Tasmania's latest State of volunteering report showed an 11 per cent decline in volunteer numbers since 2014. Volunteers contribute $4 billion to the Tasmanian economy annually, with the average volunteer contributing 4½ hours per week. Without volunteers our iconic community-driven organisations suffer. The management team at Emu Valley Rhododendron Garden in Burnie, for example—which opened in 1981—recently announced that there were not enough volunteers for the upcoming spring and summer tourist seasons and it may have to close or operate at reduced hours. We all lead busy lives with families, careers and other commitments which doesn't leave much room for volunteering. The impact of low volunteer levels places pressure on community organisations—(Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 36 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Like my colleagues, I have been speaking to businesses across Australia about their experience of Labor's cost-of-living crisis on them and on their operations. One business owner told me that the cost of supplies was increasing 30 per cent week on week. Minister, what is this Labor government doing to alleviate this inflation on small businesses and does she agree with her colleague the Assistant Treasurer that there will be hyper inflation? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor's economic plan to address the cost of living crisis that we inherited from a government that had wasted a decade, that had not dealt with the policy challenges, that had their heads in the sand and that used the budget like it was money made available for the National Party. That's what we are fixing. We accept that businesses are under a lot of pressure. They haven't had an energy policy for the last 10 years. There were 22 failed policies under your government when you were in power. That's what small business is saying to us. Yes, there are challenges, but we need to deal with them, and Labor's economic plan does exactly that. In dealing with the cost of living crisis, we have made submissions to the Fair Work Commission to make sure that working people, those on the minimum wage, actually get a decent pay rise. We have extended some of the pandemic payments that your mob had ended or were going to end and we've kept them going. We will debate this week the Climate Change Bill to put in place the regulatory and legislative framework to deal with the impacts— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. I'm running the Senate, and I will call senators when I'm good and ready, thank you, Senator Hughes. Senator Hume 266499 I rise on a point of order. We are a minute into a two-minute answer and the minister hasn't answered the question about the effects of inflation on small businesses, and specifically about the potential for hyper inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hume. I believe Senator Gallagher is relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING In response to the second part, the forecast for inflation was detailed in the Treasurer's July economic update statement. But I am explaining to the shadow minister for finance exactly what we are doing to put downward pressure on costs on businesses and households. I can go through it again. We've got child care, we've got cheaper medicines coming in, we have a bring forward the training places to deal with the skills crisis that small business are also discussing with us, after years of not dealing with workforce shortages and the skills training to make sure that young people and older workers have the skills that they need for the jobs of the future. They are just some of the things we have done in three months, as opposed to your nine years of inaction. T 112096 Before I call Senator Hume for a supplementary question, I remind those on my right that Senator Hume has the right to put her question in silence. I struggled to hear her question. 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I remind the minister that, in fact, child care, COVID payments and minimum payments are doing nothing to help small business inflation. Another small business owner told me that she had begun absorbing fixed costs because, with the other cost-of-living pressures, she didn't think customers would be able to afford any additional price increases. So, Minister, what do you have to tell this business that will assist them in making sure they can stay open and that they can stay profitable? And does she agree with her colleague, the Assistant Treasurer, that there will be more strikes? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There was a lot in that question. As the Prime Minister has said, this government is pro-business. We are pro working with business to deal with the challenges that they are dealing with right now after a decade of wasted opportunity and inaction by those opposite, who have the nerve to come in here now and start blaming us for the economic challenges that we have inherited. These didn't happen overnight; they didn't happen on 21 May. They've been brewing for years: skills, climate change, energy policy, dealing with the challenges in visa backlogs, in migration—all the issues that we are responding to now, after your government had its head in the sand because you were too busy fighting each other or throwing dodgy cash to the National Party. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary question? 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I've also had a small business tell me—in fact, more than one—that they're currently working through plans to lower the number of hours for staff in expectation of an economic downturn. What does this minister have to tell these businesses, who see no plan from this government? And does she agree with her colleague the Assistant Treasurer, who said that under a Labor government there would be a very rocky economic period? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can assure the shadow finance minister that we will be working closely with small business. They were at the table at the Jobs and Skills Summit. They were deeply involved in the discussions through their peak organisations. We were working with small business and their industry representatives, and business was very well represented at the Jobs and Skills Summit. So we will be dealing with the things they want to see dealt with—like skills, like increasing the migration numbers, like dealing with climate change, like putting in place an energy policy, and like supporting them in terms of some of the challenges around cyber and digital. These are all the issues that we're looking at. We also want to ensure that people who are using these businesses have enough money in their pockets to spend in those businesses. That's why we are supporting reasonable and responsible wage increases for working people. Jobs and Skills Summit 37 14:06 Senator MARIELLE 281603 South Australia SMITH () (): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on the outcomes of last week's Jobs and Skills Summit and how the outcomes will benefit Australians? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question and for all the work she did in the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. Right across the government, our caucus, more than 100 round tables were held in various locations. I did one with Senator Urquhart in northern Tasmania, which was very well represented, with more than 70 people—businesses and NGOs, everyone coming together to work with us to talk about the challenges they want to see addressed. The summit brought people together to agree on key actions to build the stronger economy that we all want to see and help set a clear direction for future work, putting full employment and productivity—remember that word, 'productivity'? You didn't see much of it when you were in government—at the centre of our economic strategy and recognising that equal participation and opportunities for women are critical to that. We agreed to 36 immediate initiatives, including extra money for fee-free TAFE and fast-tracking of those fee-free places; more and better investment in social and affordable housing; an extra $4,000 in income credit so that age pensioners can work and earn more before it affects their pension; responsibly increasing the permanent migration target to address those crippling labour shortages that small business is telling us about; beginning the work to repair the broken bargaining system; and strengthening flexible working arrangements. After a decade of division and delay, conflict and complacency, this is what can be achieved by a government that is inclusive, collaborative and consensus seeking. By refusing to participate—not one of you attended; Mr Littleproud did, all credit it to him—the opposition made it clear that it wants nothing but a decade of flat real wages, falling productivity and falling living standards. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a supplementary question? 14:09 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister outline the areas of policy that were discussed at the Jobs and Skills Summit and update the Senate on where there was broad agreement among those who were represented at the summit? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will, and I can tell you, from being at that summit for two days, how many people who attended the summit came up to me and said how refreshing it was to have a government who is prepared to sit down with them for two days and talk to them about all the issues affecting them. It was a broad range of people right across the community. They wanted a better skilled and better trained workforce; addressing skills shortages and strengthening the migration system; boosting job security and wages; promoting equal opportunities and reducing barriers to employment; and maximising jobs and opportunities in our industry and our community. This is what the summit determined to be the priorities, as was making gender equality a core economic priority. There were significant agreements reached. It is shame that those opposite couldn't be bothered coming. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary. 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister explain what progress was made at the Jobs and Skills Summit on restoring national leadership on gender equality? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you; I can. This was a very serious part of the summit. It was kicked off by an all-women panel on equal opportunity and pay, in a room where women made up the majority of participants. At the 1983 economic summit there was only one woman in the room, Labor Senator Susan Ryan. We know that women's equality is good economic policy, something that was recognised unanimously at the Jobs and Skills Summit. We also talked about our $5 billion commitment to make childcare cheaper for more Australian parents and allow more women to work more hours if they wished. We announced the Chair of the Women's Economic Equality Task, Sam Mostyn, to maintain momentum on the ideas raised at the summit and advise the government on the national gender equality strategy. Also, as Minister for the Public Service, I committed to expect that the APS should take a leadership position on gender equality, including through reporting to WGEA, setting targets to address gender equality and gathering data. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 38 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace relations, Senator Watt. Why is the Albanese government entertaining the proposal of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to reintroduce industry-wide bargaining? Does the minister realise that industry-wide bargaining will lead to more strikes and significantly disrupt a number of sectors of our economy? 14:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Isn't it disappointing that the only group in Australian politics who hasn't got the memo that what the Australian people want is more cooperation is the Liberal Party. Even the National Party seemed to briefly get the memo when they had their leader turn up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. But, of course, the Leader of the Opposition didn't turn up. The Shadow Treasurer wanted to be invited and then didn't show up. The Deputy Leader— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, President, it's very disappointing that the Liberal Party has not received the memo, because what the Australian people had been saying over and over again, both before and since the election, is what they want in industrial relations is more agreements and less conflict. But what do we continue to see offered up by the opposition, who are still fighting the last war? They want to progress the nine years that we saw of more conflict, fewer agreements, lower wages and lower productivity. What a quadrella that is! If you could go to the races and make a bet on a quadrella and you were a member of the opposition, you would want more conflict, less agreement, lower wages and lower productivity. That is what you bequeathed the Australian people and that is what you continue to want to offer the Australian people. In terms of wage bargaining, the Albanese Labor government has made a very clear commitment that we will get wages moving in this country. The way we are going to do that is by reaching more agreements. Business and unions agree that we need a new approach. That's why so many of them actually turned up to the summit last week, unlike anyone opposite—up until about that row over there—to actually have a discussion. Opposition sen ators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Those on my left, particularly, and some senators—in particular, Senators Hughes and McGrath: the running commentary is absolutely disorderly, and I would ask you to desist. Please continue, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. We will legislate to ensure that workers and businesses have flexible options for reaching agreements. That is all about bringing the current legislation up to date with a new government that wants wages moving. Senator Cash referenced the ACTU. Of course, the ACTU are not the only people to welcome this approach. I heard Alexi Boyd from COSBOA on the radio this morning saying, 'What we are hearing from our members is some of them saying this is something they would like to look into.' It's as simple as that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the minister guarantee that any changes the Albanese government makes to the Fair Work Act will not result in more strike action being taken? 14:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland This change, which has been agreed upon by businesses and unions at the summit, is about better pay for workers, particularly women. It's about more productivity in the economy, not less. It's about more agreements, rather than a continuation of the nine years of conflict that we saw from the last government, which did nothing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I did ask you during the last series of questions to not do the running commentary. I would ask you to stop doing the running commentary, please. Senator WATT 245759 What will change as a result of these legislative changes from this government is that more businesses will have access to simple, flexible and fair agreements and more workers will get pay rises. That's why Alexi Boyd from COSBOA was on the radio this morning saying that she's hearing from some of her members that it's something that's worth looking into. Unfortunately, the party that presents itself as being the friend of small business is actually running against small business and not listening to small business. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on question of direct relevance: Senator Cash's supplementary question went very specifically to the rates of strike action that could occur under government reforms, simply seeking a guarantee from Senator Watt that there would not be an increase in the incidence of strike action. He hasn't mentioned strike action once in his response. With 12 seconds remaining, I invite him to give that guarantee. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do believe the minister's being relevant, but I will listen over the next 12 seconds. Senator WATT 245759 Unfortunately, there remain in this community and in this parliament some people who don't want workers to get pay rises and some people who don't want businesses to have productivity. That's why they keep using scare tactics about strikes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 14:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does the minister agree with the Assistant Treasurer that striking is an effective part of the bargaining process? Why is the government promoting workplace conflict instead of employees and employers working together? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Cash. The minister responsible for more conflict in industrial relations than any we have seen in recent history, the minister whose office leaked about a police raid on a union office—that's how much she was into conflict—now wants to come in and lecture us about strikes and industrial conflict. I mean, really! Even for you, that is utterly shameless. Everyone knows— Oppositio n senator s interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash, I welcome every question you ask about industrial relations. I noticed that there was one member of the opposition who did have the decency to admit that his government had failed. That was the man who is now apparently known as 'Soccer Dad Matt Canavan', who said on Twitter a couple of days ago: When Australia became a nation in 1901, the average Australian had to work for 18 minutes to earn a loaf of bread. By 2019, that loaf cost just four minutes of work. Over the past 3 years, we have gone backwards. Thank you, Senator Canavan, for telling people that it now takes 4 minutes and 21 seconds to earn your daily bread as a result of your government. (Time expired) Pakistan: Floods 40 14:18 Senator FA 250362 New South Wales RUQI () (): My question is to Minister Wong, representing the Prime Minister. The recent climate-fuelled floods in Pakistan are having horrific consequences. To date, one-third of Pakistan is underwater, 33 million people are affected, the death toll is more than a thousand people, one million homes have been wiped out and half a million people are living in tents. This is the deadly face of the climate catastrophe. Early estimates show that the damage from the floods is more than $10 billion. The UN has called for $160 million in emergency aid. Australia has so far promised a measly $2 million in aid to Pakistan. Just $2 million. This is nowhere near our fair share. Minister, will the government take responsibility and provide aid to Pakistan that is more commensurate with our wealth and contribution to the climate crisis and equivalent to the scale of the disaster? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for her question and I also acknowledge her and her family's personal connection with Pakistan, along with many others in the diaspora, for whom this has been a very difficult time. The senator is right. This is a disaster on a truly massive scale, with 33 million people affected, including through displacement and loss of livelihood. We've seen lives lost, including those of children. On behalf of the Australian government, as I did last week, I extend our sympathies and condolences to the families and communities in Pakistan that have lost loved ones and to the many who have been affected by the devastating floods. We announced a contribution, as the senator indicated, through the World Food Programme of $2 million to assist the Pakistani government and its people to respond to immediate humanitarian needs, particularly focusing on those who are disproportionately affected, including women, children and the vulnerable. In relation to the request, I would make a few points. The first is that Australia will consider further support in consultation with international partners following the launch of the UN flash appeal. It is the case that our initial response is on par with many other medium-size donors. To be frank, there are humanitarian demands around the world, including in our near region. Just as we would always like to be able to fund many of the good ideas that were discussed at the jobs summit, so too when it comes to humanitarian aid do I and my ministers in the portfolio always have more worthy requests than we can fund. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary question? 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The people of Pakistan are paying the price for the insatiable appetite of wealthy colonial countries like Australia to keep digging up coal, gas and oil. This obsession is leading to these deadly consequences. Given the death and disaster this is inflicting on the people in Pakistan and the Global South, who did little to contribute to the climate crisis but are the most vulnerable, will the government now act urgently and commit to no new coal and gas? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Firstly, there was much in that question with which I don't necessarily agree. But I do agree with the proposition that those who are most vulnerable in this world are most vulnerable to climate change. Where you already have poverty and where you already have poor levels of infrastructure and poor levels of economic resilience, those communities and those nations are far more vulnerable to climate change and far less able to respond. I would make the point, as I made when I had the privilege of being Australia's climate minister, that pointing the finger at each other when it comes to resolving the global action on climate change is less productive than finding an agreement about how we start to reduce emissions. The senator is right that the vast majority of emissions already in the atmosphere are as a result of developed countries. I would make the point going forward that— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi: second supplementary? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales We owe it to the people of Pakistan and all others who are on the front line suffering the worst consequences of the climate crisis to do everything we can to tackle it. We need fast action on methane to keep a 1.5 degree centigrade future within reach. Will the government today commit to joining and signing on to the global pledge to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government agrees that we need urgent action. It is a pity that this country has spent nearly a decade fighting the climate wars, which have both come at the cost of jobs and opportunities here in Australia but also meant we have not been part of the solution when it comes to global action on the climate. In that context, I am disappointed to see some commentary from the Greens Party that the climate wars aren't over. What I would say to you is that I think Australians have made it clear they actually want a way forward. They want solutions. Whether it's those opposite or, on occasion, those at this end of the chamber, they seem to be more interested in the political benefits of conflict. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Faruqi. You weren't in my line of sight. Is it a point of order? Senator Faruqi 250362 That's all right. I want to go to relevance. More than half the time has expired. I had a very specific question about whether the government would commit to joining the global pledge to cut methane emissions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, the minister's entitled to take into account the preamble and the question, and you did have a broad preamble. I do believe that the minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. There was quite a long preamble, to which I think I am entitled to respond. I think we have made public our consideration of the methane issue that you have raised. But I would make the broader point that what we can do is make sure that we get over the climate wars we've seen over the last 10 years. (Time expired) Jobs and Skills Summit 41 14:25 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Last week's Jobs and Skills Summit, held right here in Parliament House, brought together industry groups, business leaders, unions and advocacy groups to address workforce issues right across Australia. Can the minister please detail to the Senate how the outcomes from this summit will benefit the ag industry right now? 14:25 Sena 245759 Queensland tor WATT (—) (): I thank Senator Ciccone for another great question about agriculture and industry, which I know he is very interested in. Firstly, I want to echo the words of the Prime Minister who said, in relation to the summit, that it delivered outcomes that even he could not have hoped for. To see the leaders of groups divided for so long under the previous coalition government come together to discuss these major workforce and training issues was really something special, and that was certainly the mood of the room. That applies to agriculture as much as to other industries. The National Farmers Federation and its members were in the same room as unions covering agricultural workers for the first time in many years, and I thank all of those participants for their collaboration and for putting the interests of industry, farmers and workers first, rather than political gains. There were some great outcomes from the summit that will benefit the agriculture sector straight away. The government announced an additional $1 billion in joint funding with the states for fee-free TAFE in 2023, and I'll be working with industry, unions and rural Australia to ensure that agriculture get its fair share. We also announced that the migration cap would be lifted from 165,000 to 195,000, including 34,000 places for the regions, an increase of 9,000 on that which the previous government put in place. Again, this increase will help fill some of the gaps in the agriculture workforce. The government also announced money for visa processing, to speed it up and clear the backlog of nearly a million people who are waiting because of the previous government's inaction. Again, that will help the agriculture workforce. These measures, of course, come on top of the government's existing commitments, including to expand the PALM scheme and strengthen worker protections. At the end of the summit last week the NFF President, Fiona Simson, said that they got sick of waiting for action under the previous government. The ag sector waited for a number of years for the ag visa. They waited for years for investment in training. They waited for years for any movement, and now we're already delivering after 107 days—(Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary question? 14:27 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria That's wonderful news—thank you, Minister. Can the minister outline what measures from the summit will be implemented to alleviate these workforce issues in the agriculture industry over the next 12 months? 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Ciccone. In the lead-up to the summit a historic meeting was held between agriculture and processing employers, unions and government. This was something the former government couldn't do and wouldn't do—actually getting people in the same room to talk about shared challenges is something the previous government just would not bother even trying to do. As a direct result of that meeting, we have established a tripartite agriculture workforce working group to progress an agreed list of items needing further consideration. During the Jobs and Skills Summit, the NFF, Australian Pork Limited, Wool Producers Australia, JBS and the Australian Meat Industry Council joined the ACTU, the AWU, the UWU and the meat workers' union at a signing ceremony to try to find agreement on these issues moving forward. This group will pursue solutions to better skill, attract, protect and retain workers across the ag sector. Having these different sectors, who were once so divided, come together was a fantastic step forward in dealing with these issues. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary question? 14:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria What a great spirit of cooperation there was during the jobs summit last week, and I want to thank the minister. Can the minister also advise the Senate how this new spirit of cooperation compares to the previous approach undertaken by the coalition government? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for observing the spirit of cooperation. It sounds like some others could learn from that. One of the things that was mentioned during the press conference that we held with the NFF, its members and every union that covers the agricultural workforce was how unlikely this tripartite working group would have been under the previous government. It's no surprise, when you have the Leader of the National Party—who says he represents farmers—consistently hurling insults at the nation's peak farming body. Previously, he claimed that they don't represent farmers—they're only the peak body for farmers. He's called them ignorant, and just last week he called them cowards. No wonder the former government, with an attitude like that, couldn't deliver a single worker under their agricultural visa scheme. They couldn't get consensus within their own coalition, let alone within the wider sector. It's just more of the same from the Liberals and Nationals, dividing Australians instead of bringing them together. But I will give Mr Littleproud credit for turning up. Who wasn't there? The one person who wasn't there was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. (Time expired) Covid-19: Vaccination 42 14:30 Senator R 266524 Queensland OBERTS () (): My question is for Senator Gallagher, for the Minister for Health and Aged Care. A peer reviewed paper last week in the establishment scientific journal Vaccine examined Pfizer's COVID vaccine randomized phase 3 clinical trial data. It used the World Health Organization's framework made for this purpose, the Brighton Collaboration on adverse events of special interest. Authors include virology and pharmacology experts from UCLA, Stanford, the University of Baltimore and Queensland's Bond University. The paper concluded that the Pfizer's vaccine was associated with a 36 per cent increase in serious adverse events. The most common were coagulation disorders and acute cardiac injury. In every 10,000 people injected, 18 will experience a life-threatening or life-altering medical complication. Serious adverse events from Pfizer's COVID vaccine are four times higher than any benefit in reduced hospitalisation. Minister, is Pfizer's vaccine safe, and do advise Australians to continue taking it? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I haven't read the paper that Senator Roberts is citing, but, in answer to his question 'Are the vaccines safe?' yes, they are. The successful deployment of vaccinations across the world has prevented probably millions of deaths from COVID-19, particularly in those vulnerable populations such as older people, people who have a disability or people who are immunocompromised. We've done very well here in Australia. We've got some more to do in terms of fourth doses, where it's still only about 40 per cent of eligible people who have received their fourth dose. But the vaccine is safe. It's been an incredibly effective health measure to manage the pandemic, to protect lives and to protect economic loss that would have otherwise occurred from such a serious global pandemic. We have put our trust in the health experts in Australia from the beginning of this pandemic. Their advice hasn't changed. ATAGI have considered all the matters, the scientific panel has looked at them and the TGA has approved the vaccines. They have been through rigorous processes to ensure that they are safe, and where there have been adverse events—and there have been, unfortunately, including serious adverse events and the loss of life—the advice has changed and the vaccine program was changed to deal with that. Where there have been adverse events, they have all been reported publicly on the TGA website, so that people are able to see the data and see the changing health advice around the vaccines. But, yes, they are safe and people should have their vaccine, including their fourth dose. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, your first supplementary question. 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Sixty-three million COVID injections means up to 113,000 Australians suffered serious adverse events. Since the vaccine's release, all-cause mortality, after allowing for COVID deaths, is at record highs. This paper proves COVID vaccines cause serious side effects—in 13 cases, fatal ones. ATAGI admits children are being given myocarditis and pericarditis. Where is the royal commission that your own COVID committee called for? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We didn't call for a royal commission into vaccine safety; let's be clear on that. As chair, there was a recommendation about looking at all aspects of the pandemic response. But it is different, and I don't want to be involved in any conspiracy about vaccines, thanks very much. They are safe. The evidence has been provided and the data is available on the website. And I would say to Senator Roberts—because I do have time for you, Senator Roberts; we have good discussions, and have had through the pandemic—if you are concerned by this paper you've read, I would urge you to refer it to the TGA or to the AHPPC or to ATAGI, and get their considered opinion on it to see, and perhaps listen to, the other side from those experts who've been working on vaccines and vaccine safety. 14:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The vaccines are causing coagulation disorders, and this will show in our reduction in live births. The Australian Bureau of Statistics receives live-birth data six weeks post-birth, so we should be seeing live-birth data to June 2022, yet the ABS data stops at December 2020. Minister, why is this government holding back 2½ years of live-birth data? What are you covering up? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory For a start, just to answer your question directly, we're not covering up anything. Secondly, on issues of births, live births, maternal deaths or deaths of babies, usually that data is reported, and it's reported at a state and territory level, so I'm sure that data does exist, if you are interested in it. Where there have been side effects from the vaccine, and there have been some—I'm sure many in this chamber got them—like headaches, feeling a bit tired and escalating into more serious conditions, they have been appropriately managed, and advised on by all of those experts. When there were some concerns about blood clotting and myocarditis in young men, I think in teenage boys particularly, those issues were addressed and were managed, including by providing advice to anyone who is a vaccination provider, to keep an eye out for any conditions like that. And you'll see from the data that the TGA— (Time expired) Mining Industry 43 14:36 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, Senator Watt. During the inquiry into the government's climate change bills, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility indicated there are a total of eight coal- and gas-related opportunities within the project pipeline. Can the minister guarantee the continuation of these projects? 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As the former shadow minister for Northern Australia, I don't require a folder for this answer, but I thank you for the question, Senator McDonald. I think it's well understood that the Labor Party's position in relation to any resource project—coal, gas or any other mineral—is that we assess it on its merits. We do not have the same position as the Greens, which is a blanket ban. We do not have the position of the opposition, which is to support every single project without having a look at the environmental or economic benefits of it. We have a sensible approach. Our position is very simple. If a particular project stacks up economically, environmentally and socially, then it will go ahead. Every project will go through the proper assessment proposals. Every project has to stack up economically, and every project has to pass the environmental test and get the environmental approvals. The projects that you're talking about are hypothetical in nature at this point in time, but should those projects be applied for then we will consider them on their merits. 14:38 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Can the minister outline how the proposed bill will affect the future investment decisions by NAIF, considering the government's commitment to increasing gas supply? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, the position being put forward by this historic bill from this government is that what we will do, for the first time, is lock in an interim emissions target of 43 per cent by 2030. It's a real target, it doesn't rely on technology that has yet to be invented, and is of course a pathway to net zero by 2050. I might say to Senator McDonald and other members of the opposition that these are targets that are already committed to by pretty much every resources company in the country. Every resources company in the country that you care to think about has committed to net zero by 2050. They are all already making changes to reduce their emissions and, frankly, what this government is doing is just trying to catch up with where industry is, on the way to then leading. It's something that, unfortunately, the former government didn't do. We saw industry get well ahead of the former government's policy, and all that did was deprive regional Australians of jobs. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, a second supplementary question? 14:39 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Thank you. That didn't answer my last question at all. Can the minister guarantee that no proposed or committed gas projects that are currently within NAIF's pipeline will be refused financing as a result of changes under the legislation? 14:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've seen no evidence whatsoever that this government intends to change NAIF's investment mandate or rules in the way Senator McDonald is talking about. As the minister representing the northern Australia minister, I have seen no evidence to speak of— Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, Senator Green, for reminding me: the only government that we have seen interfere with the NAIF's investment decisions about investing in resources and energy projects is the former government, which killed off a wind farm outside Cairns—the Kaban project—that would have delivered about 250 jobs to Cairns. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, a point of order? Senator McDonald 123072 I specifically asked about the changes under— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, I would ask you—if that was you—to desist. Senator McDonald 123072 I specifically asked about the projects within the NAIF pipeline to be refused funding as a result of changes under this legislation—specifically. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McDonald, and I do believe the minister is being relevant. Senator WATT 245759 Again, the climate change bill is about bringing in an interim target to reduce our emissions. There is nothing in the bill, that I'm aware of, that would have the effect Senator McDonald is talking about. I would certainly hope she and her colleagues are not intending to continue the same scare tactics we saw for 10 years that held back investment, drove up our emissions and cost jobs. Pensions and Benefits 44 14:41 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Minister, the Treasurer was quoted this morning in relation to the indexation of income support payments as saying: We know that it won't solve every problem for everybody, but it's important that we try and make sure that those payments keep up. Minister, today's indexation of income support payments is less than $2 a day extra for someone on JobSeeker. This pathetic increase will leave millions of Australians in really tough times, with payments that are not keeping up, that aren't within cooee of the poverty line, let alone giving people enough to live on. Minister, poverty is a political choice. Why won't your government choose to increase the rate of JobSeeker above the poverty line? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rice for the question. It's on an important topic and one the government has been looking at closely when we've been working through our line-by-line audit of the budget of those opposite—how they used to allocate money—to see how we can make sure every dollar that is being spent is actually quality spending and is going towards supporting Australia and the Australian people. We've been clear, though, about the rate of JobSeeker. This did come up quite a number of times during the election campaign. Our commitment was to look at payments through the budget process and to look at, basically, how much money is available and ease cost of living where we can. But we didn't make a commitment to increase JobSeeker over and above the indexation arrangements, which, because of the high inflation, will require a very significant adjustment to the parameters in the October budget, which the budget will have to accommodate as well. Part of the issue we're dealing with here is a trillion dollars of Liberal debt—deficits for as far as the eye can see. We do need to be fiscally responsible as well. They are the challenges facing us as we put together our first budget. We cannot just go and fund all the good ideas we would like to fund, because we've inherited an absolute mess from those opposite—a trillion dollars in debt, programs growing, terminating measures that have no funding beyond the next two years. These are the challenges we're trying to grapple with. But, rest assured, we will do a better job and we will care about people much more than those opposite did. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, a supplementary question? 14:44 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, you talk about spending every dollar in a quality way, of the trillion dollars of Liberal debt, of being fiscally responsible and, I repeat, that poverty is a political choice. Can you explain then why you are choosing to implement the stage 3 tax cuts, which will give $244 billion over the next 10 years to billionaires and the ultra-wealthy, and to everybody in this place, while people on jobseeker are forced to live below the poverty line? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The priority for the government is to do what we can now, in the immediate term, to deal with the budget mess we have and deal with the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. We have not changed our view on the stage 3 tax cuts. They don't come in until July 2024. There is an immediate issue here, right now, that we are working through. And, believe me, we are working hard every day to go through the budget to try and make room for good ideas that we would like to fund over and above the commitments we made in the election campaign. But, in terms of immediate cost-of-living relief, they will be things that we do within the October budget, like making medicines cheaper, making investments in cheaper child care and the quite significant parameter variations that we will have on indexing payments, which will make a difference for people who living on those payments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, a second supplementary. 14:46 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, I will ask it another way. Can you explain why people living below the poverty line are going to receive a measly $1.84 per day while Labor's stage 3 tax cuts will give Clive Palmer and everyone else earning over $200,000 an extra $24.86 per day? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My answer is the same as my answer to the previous question, which is that we are focused right now on the next two years and what we can do to deal with some of these cost-of-living pressures immediately. The indexation increases to payments will flow through the adjustment made at the end of September. They will provide some assistance to people as we put in place other arrangements to deal with the cost of living, such as our childcare policy and our cheaper medicines. We have not changed our view on stage 3, but that is not until 2024. These issues that people are dealing with right now are right now, and that is our focus as we put together the October budget. Pensions and Benefits 45 14:47 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. What is the minister doing to help Australian pensioners deal with the lack of action on and the neglect of cost-of-living issues, which are the legacy of the Morrison government? 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Walsh for her question and congratulate her on the terrific job that she is continuing to do for the people of Victoria. The Albanese Labor government has overseen the largest indexation increases to government payments in the history of more than 30 years of Australian government allowances. Australian pensioners haven't seen a rise like this in over 12 years, over the entire length of the former, cold-hearted Liberal-National coalition government that now sits opposite because the Australian people simply had enough—enough of the lack of economic planning to lead us out of the pandemic and enough of the lazy policy that has left our nation's most disadvantaged the most exposed to the tumultuous global economic conditions. This government is committed to serving all Australians and ensuring that, no matter what your circumstances, there is a strong social safety net to protect you when you need it most. This reflects the fundamental principles of this government to leave no-one behind and hold no-one back. This indexation will be yet another building block that we are putting in place to help ordinary Australians manage the challenging economic times that we face, ensuring that the government payments keep up with the cost of living. Our government understands the challenges Australian households are facing with increasing cost-of-living pressures, especially those on low incomes. The measure to increase government payments by four per cent demonstrates yet again how we are committed to a welfare system that supports the most vulnerable Australians, encourages those who are able to work or study and remains sustainable for future generations. (Time expired) The PR 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary. 14:50 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, is the indexation measure the only boost that age pensioners can expect from this government? 14:50 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, I thank the senator for her very important question. Indexation is not the only measure our government has announced in order to assist pensioners. As discussed in the chamber this morning, following the Albanese government's Jobs and Skills Summit, we announced an increase in the amount pensioners will be able to earn before losing any of their pension. From 1 December 2022 pensioners on the age pension will have their work bonus income bank credited with $4,000. This will take the maximum work bonus income bank from $7,800 to $11,800 until 30 June 2023. The $4,000 increase will be added to each age pensioner's work bonus income bank upfront. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary. 14:51 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, what else is the government doing to address the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, I thank the senator for her question and her commitment to the most disadvantaged people in our community. The indexation measures announced will go some way to easing the cost-of-living burden facing Australia, and some of our society's most disadvantaged people are feeling that most keenly. These indexation measures have been implemented to address the CPI rate increase of four per cent. The indexation will continue to be applied on a six-monthly basis. The factors causing price increases are multifaceted, and we must work to address them across budget cycles. We're spending around $126 billion on income support payments through the social security and social services portfolio, which encompass family assistance and student assistance payments in 2022 and 2023. (Time expired.) Space Industry 46 14:52 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. Is the minister aware of reports today that the Space Industry Association of Australia is asserting that there has been no substantial engagement with the space industry by any ministerial office in Canberra, that the space policy is in a vacuum and that critical national space infrastructure projects totalling $2.5 billion are stalled on departmental desks? It appears to many that space has fallen through the cracks in Canberra. Can the minister reconcile his government's reported neglect of Australia's strategic and economic importance of the space industry with the government's stated commitment to the industry sector? 14:53 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for his question. We're certainly not letting space fall between the cracks—you ought to know better than that, coming from South Australia, Senator! You know all about what the Malinauskas government are doing in South Australia, and what the Albanese government are doing nationally on this issue. We're revitalising the space industry, which was left to wallow for 10 years under your former government. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N You ought to know, Senator, exactly what's going on! For instance Port Lincoln, in South Australia, is going to be the basis for further space exploration, further launches of rockets into space. I was recently in the United States and I met with a company that's looking to build a new space station at Port Lincoln. The idea of this space station—you'll like this—is that it's a centrifuge, and it spins around and around and around and fires a rocket up into space. Instead of costing— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, resume your seat. Order! I'm waiting for the Senate to settle down before I call the minister. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N It fires a rocket up into space and, instead of costing about $2 billion per rocket launch, that costs about $250,000, so it's going to significantly reduce— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Your time has expired. Senator McLachlan, a supplementary question? 14:55 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I thank the minister for his very comprehensive answer. Arising from that answer, I ask him to explain the Space Industry Association of Australia's revelation that no space industry representative was invited to the government's Jobs and Skills Summit last week, despite the sector employing more than 10,000 workers and contributing billions to the national economy. 14:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I can't quite work out the senator's line of questioning here. Either this government is doing something about the space industry and is therefore creating all those jobs or it's not. But you can't have it both ways, with due respect, Senator. The reality is that, as a young man, I can remember rockets being fired at Woomera in South Australia. You let that entire industry go. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X I hate to do it, Madam President, but I have a point of order on direct relevance. As much as the trips down Senator Farrell's memory lane are most entertaining for the chamber, there was a question from Senator McLachlan which did go in particular to why the government did not invite representatives of the space industry to the Jobs and Skills Summit. I find it hard to understand how Senator Farrell's recollections of what was happening at Woomera when he was a young man have any bearing whatsoever on the invitation list for the Jobs and Skills Summit. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. When there's quiet in the chamber, I will address your point of order. I will redirect Senator Farrell to the question, which was specifically about the Jobs and Skills Summit. Thank you, Minister. Senator FARRELL I0N With due respect, Madam President, I thought I'd answered that directly in my first sentence: what the senator was asking didn't make any sense. The fact of the matter is that the Jobs and Skills Summit that we held last week and that Senator Gallagher made a very significant contribution to involved a whole range— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Your time has expired. Senator McLachlan, a second supplementary question? 14:58 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Minister, as you'd be aware, the government is yet to respond to the inquiry of the other place into developing Australia's space industry, which reported in December. Can the minister please advise the chamber when we will receive a response to that report? 14:58 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Let me tell you, and I'll reiterate what I started my comments on these questions with, that the Malinauskas government in South Australia—a very fine man, Mr Malinauskas—and the Albanese government at the federal level will ensure that the space industry flourishes in this country. We're all about bringing industry back to Australia. You let it go. Do you remember Holden and what you did to Holden in South Australia, and what you did to Mitsubishi? That was a long time ago, but— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Opposition senators interjecting— T 112096 When those on my left are quiet, I will ask Senator Birmingham for his point of order. Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on direct relevance: we seem to be on the rather earthly matters of cars at present from Senator Farrell, rather than of course the actual question that relates to the space industry and the jobs from the space industry. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do note Senator Farrell was just getting started but I am sure he will get to the directness of that question. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. We intend to rebuild manufacturing in this country. Those opposite kicked all of these companies out of our country. We are bringing them back, and space is going to be an absolutely vital part of that. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Economy 47 15:01 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hume today relating to the economy. I know those opposite are still adjusting to what we know as government. They've spent so long in opposition, and we know they've spent the majority of time in opposition since Federation. But what they do need to start to understand is that they actually are in government now and that being in government is actually about governing. It's about taking tough decisions in tough circumstances. Now unlike those opposite, we will demonstrate some grace and acknowledge that there are plenty of global influences creating cost-of-living pressures that many, many Australians are experiencing. But what that means is it is even more important the government, which is, again, those opposite, be proactive in their response. We need to make sure that the government is making decisions that are going to have the best possible outcome for Australian families as they face the challenges that cost-of-living pressures are creating. Our role over here is to hold those opposite to account. We need to have a look at what is being proposed and, outrageously, we will make suggestions. We will propose, having had a great depth of experience in government, some of the solutions that would make an immediate difference. One of those that we talked about today would allow pensioners, on both the disability support pension and the age pension, to increase the number of hours that they are able to work without impacting their pension. We suggested this back in June 2022, so over 100 days ago. The idea apparently has now filtered through, not in as an effective way as we proposed but now, through their jobs skills talkfest with the unions, they've come to some thought process that it might actually be worth considering. The Labor Party need to understand that they need to put the national interest first, not their interests, not just the unions' interests. They need to put all Australians' interests first and that includes small businesses, that includes families, that includes people who don't pay union fees, because the people who pay union fees are about 10 per cent of the workforce, not the 41 per cent of the workforce who are employed by small businesses, who were represented by one person verses the 33 people representing unions at the skills talkfest held last week. We know we won't see any action taken by this government unless it gets sign-off by the unions. Their tummy gets scratched by John Setka and there they go, they say, 'The unions say we can do it.' I did note with much interest Senator Farrell's comparison between the South Australian government and the Albanese government. Well, the South Australian government gave the donation of the CFMMEU back after the ABCC's claims became public, unlike the Albanese government. We saw in question time again today the ministers who are responsible—we know there are only four of you, because the Albanese government didn't put much weight on this chamber, so only appointed four ministers. Estimates are going to be cracking long days and weeks for you. I'm looking forward to them. Senator Polley, I hope we're there together. You know I like to give it a bit of interest for you. They're just obfuscating when it comes to questions. They like to look back. The rear view mirror is where they're focused, because they don't have a solution and they don't have a plan. As they told us through the election campaign, they had a plan for a plan. We're just waiting to see what the plan is. They don't have a plan to address inflation, but hilariously today here they are talking about the indexation of the pension. For a very long time the policy has been that the pension has been indexed every six months in line with inflation. It's going up so much, because inflation is so high. In fact, the last time we had inflation this high was back in the days—unfortunately, I don't go back to Woomera. I don't go back as far as Senator Farrell, but I do go back—when I was at school—to the recession we had to have. The last time inflation was as high as it is today was the recession we had to have under Prime Minister Keating. I'm looking forward to those lines coming again, because the Albanese government looks like it's insistent on emulating the failures of the Keating government. This skills fest wasn't in the way of Hawke. It was a Rudd 2020 special that's going to produce a whole lot of nothing yet again. 15:06 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Well, what a lot of codswallop we have here from the opposition this afternoon. In taking note of the minister's answer to the question of what this government is doing in relation to inflation—on small business—we have seen, from the former government's own contribution to this debate, an absolute reflection of the fact that they were missing in action on all of these issues while in government themselves. As Senator Gallagher clearly outlined in the government's response, we are moving on past that wasted decade to absolutely get on with addressing this cost-of-living crisis. We had a wasted decade in relation to not having an energy policy for 10 years. That is 22 failed policies under the former government. That is what small business has told us. It has had real inflationary consequences, because of their lack of capacity to invest with certainty in strategic direction. We are also dealing with the cost-of-living crisis by making submissions to the Fair Work Commission to ensure that those on the minimum wage actually get a decent pay rise. As has been highlighted, this is something that is supported broadly by business. We've even seen support from COSBOA for industrial instruments that make things simpler for them, because that too will create a more stable and less complicated business environment. It will enable them to compete, to keep employees without needing to go into their own new rounds of bargaining. We've extended some of the pandemic payments that those opposite had ended and we have kept them going. And this week we will finally be debating our climate change bill, to put in place a scheme for our nation, to give us some certainty around our energy and climate change future. All of these elements of uncertainty and chaos propagated by the former government are absolutely seeded in the current inflation crisis. We are working to put downward pressure on our nation's costs for businesses and households. We're doing this through cheaper child care and cheaper medicines, and we just announced this week, in the lead-up to the October budget, very important measures to support households to keep up with their medication costs. We're going from $40 a prescription down to about $32, I think it is. We also have plans to deal with the skills crisis through fee-free TAFE places. For years we've had a government that has absolutely failed to deal with critical workforce shortages or with investment in skills and training—investment that is much needed in order to make sure young people, older workers and our businesses have the skills they need now and into the future. These are just a small handful of the things we have done in just three months, whereas those opposite seeded the problems that our government now faces and that are beleaguering households and small businesses right around the country. As the Prime Minister said, this government is pro business and is pro working with business to deal with the challenges they are facing right now. We are dealing with a decade of wasted opportunity and inaction from those opposite—and they now come in here and start blaming us all for the years and years of inaction. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to take note of the response by Senator Gallagher to Senator Hume's question. An old expression that we all know is that leopards don't change their spots, and there is nothing more certain than that Labor in government will never, ever change their spots. They talk down the economy. They're always hoping for things to go wrong and are so disappointed when they don't. They make plans for having plans. We've just heard again from the speakers opposite about all their plans to have a plan to govern. They've got summits, they've got conferences, they've got reviews and they've got royal commissions. They have everything they can to prevent them from having to make a decision. News flash to those opposite: government is difficult; government is challenging. But in government you have to make decisions. I'm absolutely at a loss to know what the now government did when in opposition. They had many years to get across the economy, to get across COVID policy, to get across jobs policy. But it seems all they did in opposition was talk to the trade unions, and now, instead of coming out and being honest that the trade union movement is behind pretty much everything they're now putting forward, are finding many ways—plans for a plan. Be honest and just come out and say, 'This is what the trade union movement wants.' In fact, why not put Sally McManus on the frontbench? That would be more honest than the approach they're now taking to deal with the cost-of-living problems, industrial relations, and many other things. In saying that leopards don't change their spots, I want to read out something, and colleagues might like to guess who said it and when in relation to the Labor Party: Our opponents have been destructive critics. They have politically welcomed every difficulty. They have prophesied, and hoped for, disaster. Depression, mass unemployment, financial collapse; these have been their gloomy political stock-in-trade. All their prophecies have failed. Instead of depression, we have a record prosperity. Instead of unemployment, we have a record level of employment at high wages. Instead of financial collapse, we have the highest national income on record, large exports and international reserves, splendid credit, buoyant loan markets, stabilised prices. Today, bitterly frustrated by the failure of their past prophecies, they are struggling to raise false issues and new prejudices, and to make glittering promises distract attention from real and solid achievements. Colleagues, this was Sir Robert Menzies in 1954 talking about the Labor Party. Had I not just told you that, you would have thought it is actually right here today in this chamber from those who occupy the government benches. As I said—newsflash, government is hard. You have to make thousands and thousands of ministerial decisions every day based on the best evidence before you. You don't have a plan for a plan, you don't hold summits and wait three months to do things that you could have done on day one of coming into government. Instead, you have reviewed, talked, held those summits so you can get through trade union ideas under the guise of consulting with very few Western Australians, may I say. Let me tell you what good government actually looks like. Despite all of the rhetoric from those opposite now doing triple-somersaults to try to reinvent the past, the coalition government responded quickly with a targeted cost-of-living package to ease pressure on household budgets, when they needed it most under our government. We provided lower taxes to around 10 million Australians, who will receive tax relief of $1,500 now—today—when lodging their tax returns. This includes the $420 cost-of-living tax offset for low- and middle-income earners. We delivered a $250 cost-of-living payment to nearly six million pensioners, welfare recipients, veterans and eligible concession cardholders. We cut the fuel excise in half for six months, saving a family with two cars who filled up once a week at least $30 a week. We reduced the price of medicine and health costs for thousands and thousands of medicines. That is what good government looks like. For those opposite, at some point you are going to have to start making decisions, being honest about what you're doing and govern in this nation's best interest. 15:16 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Well, I thought when we came back this week that those opposite might have actually taken heed of what happened here in this parliament last Thursday and Friday with the national Jobs and Skills Summit. It obviously hurts them greatly to see business, unions, NGOs and people who are community leaders coming together in the same room, talking about the issues that matter to the Australian people. Of course, those opposite don't want to see things change, because what they like is to see chaos and division within the community. They don't like to see the business community and small businesses talking and working with the union movement, because that isn't part of their script. The issues have been made known. We went to the election saying that we would have a jobs summit, because it's not just this federal government's responsibility to come up with all the ideas and solutions going forward. There needs to be a collective acknowledgement of what the issues are and whether or not we've got the answers moving forward. One of the things that the previous government, those in opposition, had as part of their economic plan was to have stagnant wages, so they said time and time again that that was part of their plan. The reality is stagnant wages do have an impact on small businesses, which is what this question that was asked went to, small businesses and the cost of living. Yes, there is higher inflation, and gee, golly, gosh we've been in government now for about 112 days and we're supposed to forget the last nine years of the Turnbull, Abbott and Morrison governments. There are real issues with standards of living in this country, but we have to address those in a collective sense. We need to ensure that there are good, secure jobs. To do that, we've already invested in and outlined our plan for child care. We want more women back in the workforce. We want to make sure that there is proper negotiation and flexibility between the business community and unions in negotiating the ways forward. These are all sensible ideas, but what do we see from those opposite? Back to the old scare campaign, 'Heavens above, if you have business and unions working together, no, what we're going to have is strikes.' What a lot of nonsense. It's time to move into the 21st century. We want to see more sustainable investment. We want to create a sustainable economy that sees good, well-paid jobs. We want people to have the skills that are going to be needed for the future. As part of that, we will have to change and open up migration so we can bring skills in, because even with the investment we're making in TAFE we're not going to be able to fill the jobs that are now there and need to be filled. We've got a new problem, and it is a good problem to have: we've got more jobs than we have workers. We're not going to be able to address that without bringing new skilled migrants into this country, who will not only fill those positions but add richness to our culture and to our economy. But all we see from those opposite is criticism. It's like they can't just say, 'Gee, this government is getting on with it.' We didn't see Mr Dutton at the summit, but we did see Mr Littleproud, who was there and making a contribution. Maybe he should resign from his party and join the Liberal Party so that they have a leader! Mr 22 Per Cent, better known as Mr Dutton, as of this morning's newspaper, has a lot to learn. People in the electorates are sick and tired of the division. They want governments, oppositions and other parties to work together to come up with a stronger economy, more secure jobs, more women back in the workforce, and proper wages for people in aged care and those who are looking after our youngest minds in early childhood education. We need more people investing in those jobs and we need to make sure they're remunerated accordingly. 15:21 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I must say, in taking note of answers given today, that in my experience it hasn't been a successful strategy for politicians to quote opinion polls, but we wish you well with that approach. The point is that the government, which won the election with very few policies, has gone in search of some policies, and it has tried to do that by talking to a series of vested interests. When I call this government a government for vested interests it is a serious point that I'm trying to make. One of the consequences of being a government for vested interests is that, while there could be some good ideas and maybe some bad ones, there are good ideas that are not considered, because the funnel is so small. I think there have been some missed opportunities over the last seven days or so. I was surprised that there wasn't more consideration given to a small business award: a simple set of conditions that could cut across the complexity that many small businesses face in our economy. I was surprised to hear the Labor Party talk about their desire to see higher wages but not consider the fact that compulsory superannuation increases eat 80 per cent of the projected wages growth in the budget. I was surprised that people didn't consider that maybe we could use that superannuation system to deliver wages growth now. I was surprised that the super funds, with one of the strongest vested interests in this government, came to Canberra asking for another tax cut, asking for a scheme which would allow them to own all the houses, to become the landlords in Australia, where Australians would become serfs to the super funds and be forced into renting for life. Those are the things that we could have had a discussion about, but instead we have seen a series of policy initiatives designed to fill the coffers of the closest friends of the government. Of course, we have already seen in the last seven days the Attorney-General announcing that he would abolish the regulation that we put in place for class action lawyers, where people who are seeking redress through the courts system often find that the awards that they are provided by the courts are eaten up by bloodsucking class action lawyers. We also find that the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Stephen Jones, on Friday afternoon made a regulation to conceal $30 million in payments from super funds to unions that are due by 2030—$30 million per annum. This is on top of the $130 million or $140 million over the past 10 years that has already been paid from the super funds into the unions. So Minister Jones has delivered that. Then of course you see Mr Jones's other initiative, which is to review the best financial interest duty that super funds face, thanks to a coalition reform. Why would you want to review a best financial interest duty? Only because you want to permit payments which are banned today. Then, of course, the other matter before the Senate later tonight, is the matter of the abolition of the Building and Construction Commission, which of course has been a successful institution that has upheld the rule of law on construction sites, which of course is a very large industry—almost 10 per cent of GDP. So, again, you see pay-off for the CFMMEU. So, between the class action lawyers, the super funds and the unions, you have seen the government try to deliver their agenda in their first 100 days. We are only 100 days into this government, and eventually their vested interests will run out of ideas that are in the top drawer. The big risk for the country is: what is in the second drawer? It could be even crazier ideas. My good friend the member for Whitlam has already talked about 15 per cent super. That would be a really good way to crash wages. But I'm sure that there are many, many other ideas that will come from the vested interests and be facilitated by this government in the near future. Question agreed to. Pakistan: Floods 51 15:27 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to the floods in Pakistan. The scale of the floods in Pakistan is difficult to grasp. As Fahad Saeed, a climate impact scientist in Islamabad, recently said, words like 'colossal', 'mammoth' and 'gigantic' don't do justice to the situation. There are 33 million people who are affected. That is more than the population of Australia. Perhaps that gives you some idea of the enormity of this disaster. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Those who have seen the pictures coming out of Pakistan have seen the deadly face of this climate catastrophe. I speak to my ammi and relatives back in Pakistan every night. They are beside themselves at the death and destruction, with one-third of the country under water and so many lives, livelihoods, homes and infrastructure lost. My heart, my thoughts and my duas are with those who are suffering. I have been meeting with the Pakistani Australian community here, who have come together so quickly to raise funds to support the relief and reconstruction efforts. The Pakistani community is known for its generosity and, wherever they are, they are opening up their hearts and their wallets. I cannot say the same for the Australian government. The $2 million of aid they have committed to is in fact insulting. It is nowhere near our fair share. Australia needs to do more. The floods in Pakistan were caused by monsoon rains 10 times more severe than normal. Global warming is melting glaciers, which is worsening the floods. This is a climate-fuelled disaster. The harsh reality is that disasters like this will happen again and again unless there is strong and urgent action to tackle the climate crisis. Pakistan is one of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world but has contributed little to the climate emergency. The people of Pakistan are paying with their lives and livelihoods for a crisis knowingly created and exacerbated by the global north. Despite multiple warnings from experts and the scientific consensus about the causes of the climate crisis, rich countries like Australia refuse to do what is necessary and stop digging up coal and gas. At the core of the crisis is the global north's rampant extractive capitalism and pursuit of incessant economic growth whatever the cost. The cost of this greed is being paid by countries like Pakistan and their people. The extreme greed is mirrored by an extreme stinginess when it comes to the consequences of that crisis. Rich countries promise finance to help poorer countries deal with climate change as a recognition of their responsibility for historic carbon emissions, but the promise of $100 billion of climate finance by 2020 has never been met. I call on the government to face the global injustice of this climate crisis and act to tackle it. This means providing urgent aid to Pakistan, not just a mere $2 million but a much bigger amount commensurate with Australia's historic and ongoing responsibility for the climate crisis and equivalent to the scale of the disaster. This is an issue of global justice. Aid funding and climate finance is about compensation and a debt owed for the terrible legacy of colonialism. It is not charity. It is about righting historic wrongs. Given Australia's dirty hands in producing climate changing emissions, we have a special responsibility to do everything we can for climate justice. Of course, the government must take strong, meaningful action on climate. This means signing the global methane pledge and ruling out new coal and gas projects. It is untenable to keep pouring fuel on the fire, to keep sacrificing the lives and livelihoods of those in poorer countries to maintain the profit margins of fossil fuel conglomerates, many of whom fill political donation buckets of both the big parties. This disaster is deeply painful and deeply personal for me. I was made in Pakistan. It's where I grew up. It's where my elders instilled in me the spirit to stand up not just for myself but for my community and to never stay silent in the face of injustice and unfairness. There is no greater unfairness and no greater injustice than the climate crisis. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 52 CONDOLENCES Gayler, Mr John, Gibbons, Mr Stephen William (Steve), Mountford, Mr John Graham 52 15:32 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of three former members of the House of Representatives: on 27 July 2022, of John Gayler, a member for the division of Leichhardt, Queensland, from 1983 to 1993; on 19 July 2022, of Stephen William Gibbons, a member for the division of Bendigo, Victoria, from 1998 to 2013; and on 17 June 2022, of John Graham Mountford, a member for the division of Banks, New South Wales, from 1980 to 1990. NOTICES 52 NOTICES Presentation 52 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 53 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Proposed Works 53 15:33 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice that, on Wednesday 7 September 2022, I shall move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approve the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to new construction and refurbishment works at West Block. In accordance with the provisions of the act, I present a proposal relating to the works. BUSINESS 53 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 53 15:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: Senators Brockman and Molan for 5 to 15 September, for personal reasons; Senator Fawcett for 5 September, for personal reasons; and Senator Henderson for 8 September, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 54 15:35 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 54 CONDOLENCES Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeyevich 54 15:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 30 August 2022, of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, places on record its acknowledgement of his role in bringing the Cold War to an end and his vision for a more open and peaceful world, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Madam President, it is with sadness and respect that I move this condolence motion on the passing of the former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. As a child of the harsh Russia of the 1930s under Stalin, Gorbachev was a man of simple background: his father and grandfathers were farmers in the early years of Soviet agrarian collectivism. His family life was so harsh and brutal that he later reflected, 'What difference was there between this life and serfdom?' This early question reflected a lifelong courage to see clearly and to ask difficult questions. Nevertheless, he did not start his career as a disruptor. He was a party man and a loyal Soviet citizen. He was a brilliant student, studying law at Moscow State University. While he was there he met his wife, Raisa Titarenko. They married in September 1953 and shared a close emotional and intellectual partnership which endured until her death in 1999. After graduation he returned to his native Stavropol. His promise was quickly recognised and he rose through the ranks. In 1978, Gorbachev moved back to Moscow to take the position of Central Committee secretary. Then, in 1985, he took leadership as general secretary. His three immediate predecessors had all died in office within the proceeding four years. The Soviet ruling class was ageing, and it had failed to confront the growing reality of economic mismanagement and an arms race with the United States that the Soviet Union could no longer afford. Gorbachev, in contrast, was a relatively young man in his 50s; more importantly, he recognised that the Soviet Union not serving its citizens and needed to change. Throughout his leadership, Mikhail Gorbachev was the defining figure in opening up Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Glasnost, perestroika—Mikhail Gorbachev became synonymous with the processes of reform, openness, transparency and reconstruction, and he drove and inspired across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. At a time that mutually assured destruction was accepted strategic doctrine, Mr Gorbachev had the courage to reject this nightmare and work towards nuclear arms reduction—earning for himself, deservedly, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. From Stalin onwards, the Soviet Union had been built on brutal, unforgiving power; on repression; on force; on lies; and on the denial of individual liberty: all sacrificed in pursuit of the ends of the state. Ultimately, it was a fragile and crumbling edifice which did not withstand the scrutiny and transparency brought by the glasnost reforms. When the first people power revolutions swept from East Germany out towards the rest of the Soviet bloc, the Soviet Union began to fall apart, crippled in part by its legacy of corrupt economic management and by the lies it had told its citizens. At that juncture, President Gorbachev made the critical decision, one utterly unpredicted by any glance through Russian history, to let power go. There are those, including the current Russian President, who see this decision as a moment of weakness, but it was an act of profound courage, an act of profound strength. Today, as we witness the weakness and insecurity that underlies Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, we can see just how extraordinary were President Gorbachev's choices. Our challenge then and now is to strive for progress in peace. Our challenge is to reject the logic that seeks to force one nation's will over another and, instead, to resolve our differences and grapple with complex global issues like climate change, strategic competition, post-COVID economic recovery and all of the above and more, and to do so peacefully through dialogue, negotiation, compromise, hard work and respect through openness and accountability to our citizens for the world we are seeking to create in their name. In the end, that is the lesson we can take from the life of Mexico Gorbachev. In the end, we always have a choice about how we approach the issues we face and what we do with the moments with which we are presented. On behalf of the Australian government, I wish to place on record my respect for this extraordinary life and career. 15:41 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and to associate the coalition parties with the words and sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. There can be no doubt that Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the towering figures of his era and one of the most significant world leaders of the 20th century. The importance of his role in bringing to an end the Cold War, which had cast a shadow over the world for half a century, cannot be understated. As one editorial opined, 'On assuming leadership, Mikhail Gorbachev assiduously turned his attention to one herculean chore—dismantling the machinery of repression that his predecessors had so proudly and methodically erected.' Mikhail Gorbachev was the first leader from the East who was able to work with the leaders of the West after what had been decades of distrust and military threat. The fact that Mr Gorbachev could work to overcome this history of distrust through his relationship with then US president Ronald Reagan and with other world leaders reflected his commitment to his people and their own hopes for a more positive future. It was his meeting with then UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher in London in 1984 which prompted the then British leader to declare of Mr Gorbachev: 'I like Mr Gorbachev. We can do business together.' That marked the beginning of the West's recognition of Mikhail Gorbachev as a new brand of Kremlin leader, a leader with whom the West did indeed do business, and meaningful business at that. In what many have described as a breathtaking series of reforms, Mr Gorbachev lifted the iron curtain that had drawn a line between the East and the West, freeing a continent from totalitarian rule. He secured agreement on disarmament treaties, notably nuclear disarmament, with Cold War enemies. He freed political prisoners and allowed exiles to return home. He allowed his people for the first time to hear foreign news, when he ordered an end to the jamming of foreign radio broadcast frequencies. He liberalised the arts and swept away decades of ideological restraint. And it was Mikhail Gorbachev who introduced free elections. Just consider how foreign that concept was to the people across the USSR at the time he did that. It was these very reforms that, in the years that followed, would ultimately give states in Eastern Europe the impetus to break free of Moscow. To the world outside of the old USSR Mr Gorbachev will be remembered as a reformer who brought greater openness to his country through policies, the names of which are intrinsically linked to the man—a new era of openness through 'glasnost' and of economic restructuring through 'perestroika'. As Mr Gorbachev himself said in 1988 of his reforms: 'The winds of the Cold War are being replaced by the winds of hope.' For indeed they were. For his work, especially in the reunification of Germany and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, Mikhail Gorbachev was rightly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. His reforms became household terms and brought an awareness across the globe to the history of the states of the USSR and to the repression of generations. People across the former Soviet states seized the opportunity to reclaim their own nationhood, reflective of their own independent histories, languages and cultures. Thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, they were able to do so without fear of military retribution: Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians leading the way to an independence that ultimately all 15 former Soviet states would seize. The relatively peaceful dismantling of the USSR and the relatively successful development of a number of the former Soviet states stand as a powerful legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev. However, in the end, not all of Mr Gorbachev's reforms have been enduring. Many were more popular outside his own country than they were within. Despite that, Mr Gorbachev's commitment to his people and to those across former Soviet states was never diminished, nor was his relationship with world leaders and champions of democracy who were able to work with Mr Gorbachev towards peace in a part of the world to which the concept had become alien, cast aside. The failure of a bid for Russian president in 1996 did not dampen his commitment to causes he held dear. He continued his global work, including a focus on environmental causes. For anyone who was witness to the Gorbachev era, the strength of the relationship with his wife Raisa was abundantly clear, as was the extent of his grief at her death from leukaemia back in 1999. It has to be said, as we in the Australian Senate today pay tribute to a reformist leader, just how stark Mikhail Gorbachev's vision of the USSR contrasts to what we see today in Russia both domestically and through its unlawful invasion of Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev died just days after Ukraine's 31st Independence Day and, sadly, also days after the six-month anniversary of Russia's attempted full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In the days following the death of Mr Gorbachev, it was reported that he was dismayed by the new era of Russian authoritarianism, of military aggression, and the overturning of media, religious and other freedoms that he had helped to deliver for the Russian people. Having fought so hard to bring glasnost to the Russian people and those across the old USSR, it must have been particularly devastating to see Russia positioned now as being at least, if not even more, distrusted, isolated and seen as a disrupter on the world stage than it was before Mikhail Gorbachev's reign as its leader. While it is a sad reflection that these current events make Mr Gorbachev's work towards peace in Eastern Europe and across the globe seem even more elusive, we should not forget his achievements. The peaceful establishment of many nations, the reduction of many nuclear warheads, and a significant period of greater peace, stability and openness are legacies that Mikhail Gorbachev should be remembered for. While not all hopes from 30 years ago have been realised, it is these challenges which remain that makes it more important than ever that we honour the life and contribution of the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev and that we all continue to strive for the peace that he worked for. 15:49 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Australian Greens join in expressing our condolence for the death of former president Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr Gorbachev worked to cultivate constructive relationships with international counterparts to reduce the nuclear brinkmanship and reduce the political and military tensions at the heart of the Cold War. His approach stands in stark contrast to the warmongering we see from some current leaders, beating the drums of war with little regard for the human toll. In particular, Mr Gorbachev's work on nuclear weapons should be commended. At the Reykjavik summit in 1986 he championed an agreement, led by the US and the Soviet Union, to dismantle their nuclear weapons and undertake sweeping reforms of nuclear arms control. If this had succeeded, the world would have had a great opportunity to create a world free of nuclear weapons. Instead, we are still facing nuclear armed states. The Reykjavik summit was a watershed moment and the first time that the US and the Soviet Union discussed international issues with diplomacy and a real desire for improvement. Reflection on Mr Gorbachev's legacy is a moment to reflect that nuclear disarmament is within reach, as long as political leaders have the courage to make the tough decisions. 15:50 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to associate the National Party with this condolence motion and the comments made in the chamber today. It's difficult for anyone born post the 1980s to comprehend what the world was like pre the collapse of the Soviet Union or to convey to those who did not live through the Cold War era just how awful it was. This was a world that lived for decades on the edge of a nuclear holocaust, a world threatened by an empire propped up by twin methodologies of terror and lies, by KGB agents and armies of informants whose task it was to crush all opposition to the official party line. It was a deeply contradictory and a troubled political system. The Soviet Union was responsible for the hyperacceleration of an unhinged international arms race, and yet it could not provide even the basic provisions for its citizens on its supermarket shelves. Perhaps it was inevitable that such a system would eventually collapse, yet history shows that one man almost single-handedly precipitated that collapse, Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 when he was 53 years of age. This was decades younger than most of his comrades in the politburo and a very stark contrast to his octogenarian predecessors. Gorbachev was the eighth and last leader of the Soviet Union. Successor to Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Chernenko, so young was Gorbachev that in the 1980s he was given global rockstar status. Gorbachev was the leader for six short years until 1991. As General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Gorbachev embarked on a remarkable program of reform that was based on two extraordinary ideas: perestroika, the restructuring of the political and economic system; and glasnost, the end of censorship and the introduction of free speech. Gorbachev was an adherent to Marxist Leninism, yet during his leadership moved the Soviet Union towards social democracy. His achievements included withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan, liberating the Soviet satellite states in East-Central Europe that included the unification of Germany and reducing nuclear arms. As one obituary writer in the New York Times stated last week: Few leaders in the 20th century, indeed in any century, have had such a profound effect on their time. In little more than six tumultuous years, Mr. Gorbachev lifted the Iron Curtain, decisively altering the political climate of the world. At home he promised and delivered greater openness as he set out to restructure his country's society and faltering economy. It was not his intention to liquidate the Soviet empire, but within five years of coming to power he presided over the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As history shows, the economic reforms Gorbachev set in place proved to be greatly flawed. Perestroika proved a catastrophe and became synonymous with chaos, corruption and dislocation that accompanied the country's turbulent transition to a market economy in the 1990s. Privatisation resulted in vast state assets being taken over by Russian oligarchs, many of whom still control them today, while a devastating earthquake in Armenia, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster combined with, ironically, a steep fall in the price of oil impoverish the country and sank Gorbachev's popularity. Gorbachev's time of triumph was short lived. In 1990 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in recognition of his outstanding services as a reformer who greatly contributed to change for the better nature of the world's development. In 1991 a referendum confirming the breakup of nations that made up the Soviet empire was approved by more than three-quarters of those who voted, but a few months later a coup was launched against him and, during the stand-off, Gorbachev was forced to step down and Boris Yeltsin took power. This outcome was first alluded to by our own Paul Kelly in the Australian in 1987, commenting on the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke's, visit to Russia during this time. He said: In short, Mr Gorbachev has greater obstacles. First, he faces the political reactionaries, with a majority of the Politburo being appointees by his predecessors. Second, he faces the dead weight of the Soviet bureaucracy which only knows Soviet central planning. The great irony of the passing of Gorbachev last week, aged 91, is that he is despised by many Russians today. As several commentators have noted, it would be hard today to find a Russian who remembers him positively, much less in the brave and heroic way in which he is perceived in the West. Many Russians, like Vladimir Putin, long for a lost empire and believe Gorbachev was the person who destroyed the might of the Soviet state. In fact, Putin has described the Gorbachev era as 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century'. To Russian liberals, on the other hand, Gorbachev was the leader who failed to set his successor in the right direction. When he visited Australia in 2006, Gorbachev said in an interview: 'When I was in office, I never regarded Australia as just a satellite of the US. Of course, the policies of the [Australian] government could give that impression, but we regarded Australia as an important country, as a wealthy country, as a country with which we wanted to have a better relationship, and that is still my opinion.' While the Soviet empire is no more, some of the more abominable aspects of that regime have re-emerged in recent years. Indeed, while entire empires can fall, dangerous and destructive ideologies have a habit of re-emerging. The invasion of Ukraine is in part an attempt to reverse the loss of status felt in post-Cold War Russia by the disintegration of the Soviet Union that occurred under Gorbachev. In the West, including in Australia, we're experiencing neo-Marxist novelties re-emerging in the form of challenges to personal and national freedoms, challenges to the free expression of ideas and opinions and threats to true academic freedom, freedom of religion and the right to practise your faith and bring your children up in that faith. We on this side of parliament and, I hope, across parliament, especially in the Nationals, adhere to certain inviolable values of freedom, respect, fairness, equality of opportunity and private property rights. Mikhail Gorbachev, known as the great facilitator, was the last of the great leaders of the last century. As such, we honour his contribution to a more peaceful, secure world, as well as to individual freedom. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. COMMITTEES 57 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 57 Reference 57 15:58 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2023: The spread of climate related marine invasive species, particularly long spined sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) along the Great Southern Reef, with particular reference to: (a) the existing body of research and knowledge on the risks for and damage to marine biodiversity, habitat and fisheries caused by the proliferation and range shifting of non-endemic long spined sea urchins; (b) management options, challenges and opportunities to better mitigate or adapt to these threats, and governance measures that are inclusive of First Nations communities; (c) funding requirements, responsibility, and pathways to better manage and co-ordinate stopping the spread of climate related marine invasive species; (d) the importance of tackling the spread of invasive urchin 'barrens' to help facilitate marine ecosystem restoration efforts (such as for Tasmanian Giant Kelp Macrocystis pyrifera); and (e) any other related matters. Question agreed to. BILLS 57 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 57

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022

First Reading 57 15:59 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes—Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022. Question agreed to. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 58 16:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 Second Reading Speech Senator Hanson-Young "The gl aring gap in matters of national environmental significance is climate change. This bill closes that gap." These aren't my words, these are the words to a second reading speech introducing a climate trigger bill in 2005. The words belong to a member of the House then—who is still a member of the House today: Prime Minister Albanese. He went on. "It is time to act. It is time for procrastination to end. The tragic events in New Orleans and in other southern states in the United States of America highlight exactly what can be expected from the impact of climate change. We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue. We need action and one of the actions that we need, which has been acknowledged for many years, is this amendment to the E PBC Act. We urge the government to support this private member's bill." Since the day that the now Prime Minister urged the Howard Government to end the complacency and support his climate trigger bill, Australia has pumped close to 9 billion tonnes of heat trapping gases into our atmosphere and oceans. His point remains valid. The glaring gap in our environmental law is still that we allow global heating to become worse. The climate crisis and the extinction crisis are one and the same. At the beginning of this new government's term, they released the State of the Environment report. A report hidden from view by the Morrison government. I just want to quote a few short sections of the climate change section of that report. "With further impacts on the cultural environment and Indigenous economies, First Nations knowledge and knowledge systems are at further risk of destruction." The Greens acknowledge this, and we say again that there can be no climate justice without First Nations justice. The report continues: "Flora species are disappearing and are at risk of extinction." "Fauna species are forced to leave their habitats, which places stresses on the new ecosystems they migrate to" "Human wellbeing…air quality, safe drinking water, sufficient food, secure shelter" These taken for granted essentials can't be guaranteed if global heating continues on its current path. We are in an emergency—and the first thing to do in an emergency is check to see if you can remove the danger—if you can stop what is causing the harm. What is causing the harm is coal, oil and gas. Australia is the third biggest exporter of these planet cooking products after Russia and Saudi Arabia. Our biggest contribution to the global climate challenge is the mining, burning and exporting of coal and gas. The biggest contribution Australia can make to stop ecosystem collapse is to prevent these 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline from ever being built. That is what this bill will do. We can have a debate about how to phase out the existing infrastructure in place, but the very first thing we have to agree on is to not making the problem worse by opening up new coal and gas projects. And that is why a climate trigger law needs to be in place—to stop new coal, oil and gas projects. If the government approves new coal and gas today, it will lock in more emissions and warmer oceans and atmosphere for decades to come. BHP, who claims to have signed up to net zero, just filed an application for a coal mine expansion that will operate until the year 2113. Queensland Labor last week approved the Acland thermal coal mine The Federal Minister for Resources just released 10 new oil and gas leases covering 46,758 square kilometres of our oceans to be exploited and add to our extinction crisis. The Federal Minister for the Environment just approved a gas-powered fertiliser plant next to culturally important rock art made by Murujuga ancestors 40,000 years ago. This art will be eroded from chemical reactions or they will be removed from its location. That is not environmental protection, it is profit protection. There are 114 coal and gas projects in the pipeline. For our sake and our children's sake, not one of those projects can proceed. If even one of the larger projects proceeds, even the unscientific 43% target won't be met and we can say goodbye to net zero by 2050. Look at Santos' Barossa project being challenged in the courts right now by Tiwi Islanders, Woodside's Scarborough project in WA, Kerry Stokes and Victorian Labor's gas project next to Victoria's 12 Apostles and the Beetaloo Basin in the NT, which will blow up our national emissions as high as 11.3 per cent: none of these currently require emissions impacts to be considered in their approvals. The United Nations, the International Energy Agency, school kids striking for climate, the Greens, scientists, millions of Australians and even the Pope are all saying: 'we can't open up any new coal, oil or gas fields'. Australia's leading role in extinction tells us that our environment laws are broken. The government has committed to reform them and the Greens likewise give our commitment that we want to make these laws as ambitious as they need to be. The only thing stopping us from closing the climate loophole is the Labor party. This glaring gap, as the Prime Minister called it, can be fixed right now with this bill. The Bill sets a trigger for new emissions intensive projects with two thresholds. Firstly, a class of Significant Emissions.For projects that would emit between 25,000 to 100,000 tonnes of scope 1 emissions in any one year, including in pre-construction stage, the Minister must consider the project through Part 9 of the Act, as the Minister currently does with other matters of national environmental significance. As part of this assessment, the Minister must consider this: will the project be consistent with the remaining national carbon budget we have left until we hit net zero? This bill obliges the Climate Change Authority to develop a national carbon budget to 2050 to be updated annually so everyone is clear just how little scope we have left to burn fossil fuels. The second threshold is a prohibited impact on emissions. For projects that would emit above 100,000 tonnes in any one year, these projects would be treated similarly to nuclear projects under the Act, where the Minister is forced to reject any application for the project. The bill will require the Minister to also consider the remaining national carbon budget and Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets when deciding whether to enter into a conservation agreement, and the bill also allows these considerations to inform bioregional plans. This is designed to allow climate change considerations to be factored into planning considerations more broadly. Finally, the Minister will be expressly prohibited from using certain alternative approval processes for emissions intensive projects. If this bill is supported by the government, it can be the greatest single contribution Australia can make right now to put genuine action into the slogan that the Prime Minister has told the Pacific and the world that Australia is coming to the table and we are serious about doing our fair share to stop runaway global heating. So I commend this bill to the Senate. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 59 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government: Workplace Relations 59 16:00 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 33 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Rennick proposing a matter of public importance was chosen, namely: The apparent intention of the Albanese Government to adopt the union movement's call for industry wide bargaining, which would risk large parts of the Australian economy being unnecessarily shut down as a result of strike action. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:01 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise to speak to this today, because nothing motivates me more than standing up for the hardworking people of this country. If we bring back multi-pattern bargaining in this country, it will be a job killer. We do not want to see our hardworking battlers lose their jobs in in this country. Just as importantly, we don't want to see our small businesses shut down. Believe you me, this is an attack on small business by the usual suspects—the big end of town, the big unions and the big corporations—who want to drive true innovation and entrepreneurship out of this country. If there's one thing that the Labor Party love its command and control, and that is exactly what this issue is all about. It is about having unions dictate to small businesses what sorts of rules they can have in place. I want it to be absolutely that I am 100 per cent behind union membership. The comments that I am making are directed at the union elites—the same union elites who sit there year after year and call for superannuation rises. We've already had members in the other place call for a rise in superannuation of 15 per cent in the second term if Labor were to be re-elected. I would love to know exactly what low-income earners are meant to be taking home in their pay if 15 per cent of their money is going off into superannuation. Make no mistake: this will hurt industry, especially small business, at a time when they cannot afford it. It will result in job losses and potentially result in more strikes. We saw what happened in the early 2000s, when there was basically pattern bargaining. The Productivity Commission noted that the estimated cost of lost production from two industrial disputes across the automotive industry the year before was up to $630 million. Do we really want to go into the history of the car manufacturing sector and how inflexible labour laws were a part of the reason, though not the only reason; I've got my own little beef to grind with withholding taxes as well— Senator RENNICK 283596 Thank you very much for the interjection, Senator Green. This all started way back in 1986 to 1988 under the Button plan. The Button plan, which was introduced by the Hawke-Keating government, destroyed manufacturing in this country, most notably in Victoria. What Labor did straight after that was they brought the Dawkins plan in. So they destroyed the manufacturing sector and then they subsidised the university sector. Now we have the Greens on gender diversity and all of this stuff when we should be putting more money back into TAFE and getting people back into real jobs. One of the things that was completely overlooked in last week's job summit was the fact that, effectively, the first jobs you want to fill in this country are those jobs in your primary industries. Your farmers and your miners—that's where your true wealth comes from. Once you've those jobs filled up, then you work on your secondary industries— you go to your manufacturing industries. Yet, in this country, the Labor Party and the Greens do everything they can to destroy the primary and secondary industries. Let me tell you, it is the primary and secondary industries—those jobs in manufacturing, farming and mining—that create the wealth to feed the people and help employ people in the services industry. If we want to actually rebuild this country, there needs to be more focus on getting back to primary production, mining and manufacturing. I'm an unashamed protectionist. I put my flag to the mast in my maiden speech. I called on Deakin and Barton, the first two prime ministers in this country who were protectionist. I'll be honest here. This neoliberalism—which, ironically enough, was introduced by the Hawke-Keating government—has basically lowered the barriers of nation states. Now, we've offshored just about all of our productive jobs in this country. So it is incredibly important, if we are to rebuild jobs in this country, that we maintain flexibility in the workplace. I totally support minimum working conditions and fair conditions for the worker. I will be very clear about that. I myself come from a multigenerational blue-collar family, but the reason I'm on this side of the chamber is that I believe in the individual dignity and worth of every individual and in people having the flexibility to make their decisions. The Labor Party used to believe in that. We know they don't believe in that anymore. They introduced compulsory superannuation, and they never put that to the vote, did they? We know why they didn't. It's because in 1997 when New Zealand put compulsory superannuation to the vote they lost 92 per cent to eight. If Paul Keating had said to everyone in 1992, 'By 2020 we're going to take 10 per cent of your wages and give that to someone you've never met. You may or may not get it back when you're 60, and there's no capital guarantee that you're going to get it back,' do you think the people would have voted for that? Of course not. What has this superannuation ended up funding? I'll tell you what it's funded. It's funded the privatisation of our sovereign infrastructure, so either Macquarie Bank owns it or the foreign offshore companies own it. We're now paying through the nose for toll roads and services. Our energy grid is on the verge of collapse, because we've had rent-seeking privateers in the superannuation industry always whinging that they want more handouts. Climate change is just this big, virtue-signalling distraction for the rent seekers in the private sector to be milking our essential services dry. So, like I said, yet again, we have to maintain flexibility in the workplace. We have to let our small business flourish. They are not going to be able to flourish if they've got unions breathing down their throats over and beyond fair work and pay and minimum award conditions, forcing one set of rules from one industry onto another industry with another set of working conditions that are completely different to everyone else. I tell you what, this is not what we want in this country. We should be trying to get Australians back into jobs, in particular those Australians who exercise their right in a free and democratic country not to take a jab which has been proven to be ineffective. Ten million cases by August 2022; I don't think it works. Sorry, but that's the facts. We have potentially hundreds of thousands of workers out of work, here in Australia, and what does this lot on the other side do, the Labor movement, want to do? They want to increase immigration to push out Australian workers who chose their democratic right to choose what goes into their bodies. I heard a minister in the other place say last week, 'We're going to bring in nurses, because we've got a nursing shortage.' Maybe we have a nursing shortage because that side of the chamber continues to push people like nurses and teachers—they're not being vilified—out of work. I suggest before we start talking about bringing in rigid working conditions that are going to make it very difficult for small business—why would you want to start a small business in in this country with the Labor movement and the big unions and their bullying tactics and their coercion via mandates? Where were they with the mandates? They ran a mile. They do not believe in free choice. They don't believe in quality assurance. It's all about our way or the highway. Heaven help us if the Labor Party gets in charge of industrial relations in this country. Even former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd knocked back pattern bargaining in 2007; they didn't even go that far. But we know that the Prime Minister of the day comes from the far, far, far left—any further left and he'd fall off the edge of the planet; that's how far left he is. He's done a very good job of hiding his Marxist tendencies and everything like that, but, don't you worry: he will be totally behind the whole 'You will be happy and own nothing' thing. He's going to do that through basically sending small business broke. Everything's going to come back to being state owned. And while I believe that sovereign infrastructure should be state owned, I certainly don't believe that is the case in the private sector. Our small businesses are the true capitalists in this country, not the guys in big corporations now, who are controlled by the union funds. Over 20 per cent of all of our major blue chips now are controlled by industry funds. They all have one proxy adviser. Yet again, they've centralised power into the hands of a few inner-city urban elites who wouldn't know the difference between a brigalow and a box tree or between haematite and magnetite. No, they wouldn't know where the wealth in this country comes from, but they're more than happy to set down whole new bunch of rules and laws in this country that are going to drive small business broke and send hardworking Australians back home, in the gutter without a job. 16:11 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Well, here we go with the scaremongering from those opposite. It's clear that they are deeply embarrassed about the record years of low wage growth under their former government and are suffering from what I would call complete FOMO about refusing to turn up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. But this MPI gives me a chance to talk about how successful the Jobs and Skills Summit was and what outcomes it has led to. Given the Liberal Party's refusal to play a constructive role, they might have missed some of the positive outcomes that were agreed to at the summit. These include a massive investment in fee-free TAFE, an income credit for pensioners who want to get into the workforce, a fix for the visa backlog and fairer updates to the parental leave provisions. This government was also able to secure positive guiding principles for a new way forward on workplace relations, because at the Jobs and Skills Summit this government got everybody around the table. Businesses, unions and government agreed to work productively together to revitalise a culture of creativity, productivity, good-faith negotiations and genuine agreement in workplace laws. That is what those opposite are opposed to: working productively together to revitalise creativity, productivity, and genuine agreement in Australian workplace laws. Last week the Jobs and Skills Summit showed us what good government can do. This side of the chamber demonstrated what is possible when we approach problems with curiosity rather than obstinance. We have highlighted that there is nothing to be feared by governing in a way that invites a range of perspectives, even disagreement at times, but always with respect. We saw that, despite the scare campaign from those opposite, there is nothing to be feared by breaking bread with people who don't talk, look or act like you do. At the Jobs and Skills Summit we demonstrated that Australians are hungry for cooperation in the name of national interest. Obviously there is detail that we need to consult on, and we are committed to doing that. But I know that the Albanese Labor government has the stamina to deliver on the principles agreed to at the summit. I'm excited to get to work on the reforms that I know will one day mean that people in this country will have higher wages. The challenge our Jobs and Skills Summit undertook was to address these very vast and significant issues. It is very clear that the former government is embarrassed about the low wage growth over nine long years in government and is now trying to mobilise a fear campaign about plans to get wages moving again. The truth is, it was never harder to get a pay rise than under the previous government, and that has to change. In Australia, minimum standards are set by the Fair Work Commission, and if you want a wage increase above the legal minimum you must bargain with your employer for it. In order to get a pay rise, workers in particular workplaces have to go through a complicated and lengthy process called enterprise bargaining. There are very long and technical steps that workers and their employers must go through to secure an enterprise bargaining agreement, and currently workers are only able to bargain workplace by workplace. This system was brought in over 30 years ago, and both workers and employers are saying that it is no longer fit for purpose. Certainly, at the round tables that I held in Mareeba, Cairns and Townsville in the lead-up to the summit, that is exactly what I was hearing from employers and workers alike. I heard that something needed to be done to improve the complexity of this system. Enterprise bargaining was introduced at a time when workplaces had many more workers, giving them more power to bargain for good wages and conditions. Only one in every seven workers is currently covered by an EBA, meaning most workers aren't receiving regular wage rises. For that lucky one in seven, the system still isn't delivering, and it didn't deliver under nine years of the Liberal-National coalition. Workplaces are much smaller than they were when enterprise bargaining was introduced, meaning workers have fewer resources and less power to bargain on an even footing with their employers. Workers and businesses are calling for multi-employer bargaining. It's nothing to be afraid of. Those opposite will try to create a scare campaign around it, but the Australian union movement and COSBOA, the representative organisation for small businesses, have come together to put forward sensible reform that allows for collective bargaining to take the most appropriate form for industry, which it is serving. Multi-employer bargaining allows workers who do the same job across multiple employers to bargain together for wage increases. Now, I'll give you an example of this, because I know that there will be a lot of misinformation coming from the other side of this chamber. Every childcare centre in Australia has its own set of wages and conditions. Under a multi-employer bargaining model, all early childhood educators could possibly come together, beyond their own centres, and bargain for an industrywide increase. There is no denying that childcare workers are some of our lowest-paid workers, yet they do some of the most important work. It boggles the mind that those opposite could be opposed to an instrument that would lead to wage rises for some of our lowest-paid, most highly feminised workforces. More people means more power, which improves our chances of winning good wages and conditions for lower-paid workers. It is also good for business, because the current EBA process means employers have to fork out big sums of money to consultancies to navigate a complex system. This would make it easier for both workers and employers to negotiate and settle fair wage increases. The proposal, which has come from the ACTU and also from business, opens up the prospect of wage growth and collective bargaining for thousands more workers. Surely those opposite could not be opposed to more workers in our economy getting a wage increase. It is a critical step in tackling the wage crisis, because, when more workers and employers are able to bargain for wage increases, the earning capacity of working Australians will continue to grow. Labor continues to maintain that a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is one of our core values, and we will always stand up for it. Despite the scaremongering of those opposite, we will stand here, always proudly representing unions and union members. There is no amount of intimidation that those opposite can level that would make us step away from those values, because let's be clear who those opposite are talking about when they are speaking about unions. Union members are frontline workers, and the majority of them are women. Nurses are union members. Teachers are union members. Aged-care workers are union members. Cleaners, pilots and bus drivers—these are all union members. And it's highly likely that the very people that were hailed as heroes by those opposite during the pandemic held a union ticket. Even our sporting heroes are union members. The Matildas are a fantastic football team and a national icon. They are union members and they took collective action. They went on strike so that they could get equal pay, and they delivered a historic pay deal which is unique to this part of the world. Union members don't take legal, protected industrial action lightly, and when they do it's because they've exhausted every other avenue available to them. On the rare occasion that union members take the long, complex and difficult step of collective action it is because they have taken exhaustive legal steps to get there. Don't let the other side of this chamber fool you. It was collective action that won a 38-hour week, it won annual leave and it won health and safety standards that make sure that we go home from work in the same condition we arrived in. Chances are that if your job has good wages and conditions, you have a union member to thank for that. It is finally time for those opposite to stop the conflict, to build a consensus and to come together with us on this to solve the challenges that our country is facing. That is how we will get wages moving again in this country, because every Australian worker deserves a seat at the table and every Australian worker deserves fair wages and fair conditions. 16:21 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on this motion as a proud unionist. Unions are essential to the protection and advancement of workers' rights in this country. They ensure that the economic, social and environmental interests of workers are protected. All Australian workers should receive fair pay for fair work, but the reality is that many workers are falling through the gaps of our industrial relations system because they have been hamstrung by successive governments, who've denied them the right to collectively bargain across sectors. The assertion that industry-wide bargaining would result in large parts of the Australian economy being shut down is nothing but a scare tactic. The coalition's attempt to make unions and the rights of workers their political punching bag should be strongly rejected. It is a sentiment that is inherently damaging to the rights of Australian workers. But this is to be expected from an opposition that is out of ideas and out of energy. All they know how to do is run scare campaigns and attack workers. The lack of creativity is truly breathtaking. But we shouldn't be surprised. This is run-of-the-mill stuff from the Liberals and Nationals, who've not had an approach to workplace relations in their history that didn't involve deliberately making wages stagnate and trampling on working people. The Greens are in agreement with the ACTU on the need for the implementation of industry-wide bargaining, and we welcome the commitment by the government to its reintroduction. All the evidence shows that enterprise agreements negotiated by unions result in better pay and conditions for workers. We want to see more workers covered by these agreements and more workers being represented by their union. Union membership has been dropping for too many years. Today only 14 per cent of employees are members of trade unions, and less in the private sector. This drop in union membership is a direct result of deliberate policy by successive governments dismantling legislative support for unions, placing restrictions on organising and forcing workers to negotiate individually with their employers. Today we see a continued lack of political commitment to encouraging the increase of union membership. Even this morning the Prime Minister refused to commit to encouraging increased union membership. As head of the so-called 'workers' party', his lack of support for union participation is disappointing. Falling membership and decreased collective bargaining power only serve to negatively affect Australians' living standards. We need stronger unions today. Unions are their members. When the coalition and big business denigrate unions they are in fact attacking working people. Today, more women than men are members of unions. Industry-wide bargaining is particularly important and relevant for employees in traditionally female-dominated industries. The face of modern unionism has changed, and, increasingly, union member are frontline workers in aged care, early childhood education and teaching. In that sense, I am perhaps the archetypal union thug. And I have been a proud union thug for 30 years. By improving the bargaining power of workers, we are not going to see the Australian economy being shut down as a result of strike action, as Senator Rennick has asserted. It says a lot about the Liberal and National parties' lack of understanding about what matters to Australians that this is their primary focus. Increasingly, we are seeing industries such as early childhood education and aged care being eroded as workers leave this sectors due to inadequate wages. Improving worker pay in sectors such as early childhood education and aged care would go a long way towards improving the current gender based economic inequity in Australia and ensuring that the deficiencies in workers wages do not force them into a cost-of-living crisis. In focusing on the potential for strikes as the predominant issue facing our economy, Senator Rennick has demonstrated once again how the Liberals side with corporations rather than working people. Australians need wage rises now to deal with the increasing cost of living. Access to industry-wide bargaining is an essential element to ensure Australians' wages continue increasing to meet the demands of inflation and prevent a cost-of-living crisis. This is why the adoption of industry-wide bargaining is so important. Instead of being scared of the potential for strikes, we should be scared of the impacts the cost-of-living crisis will have on Australians. Fearing strikes cannot be the perennial reason for a lack of support for union strength, increasing union membership and expanding workers' rights. Stronger unions are an essential part of ensuring all workers receive equitable wages and fair working conditions. 16:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm going to take issue with what the previous speaker has just said, because Australia cannot afford a backward step into the past. Anybody who lived through the 1970s and the 1980s would remember that there was no risk of an economy-wide shut down; there was action taken in support of economy-wide shutdowns! It would appear that this is something that is missed by so many on the other side. Without a doubt, the deal that has been done between the Albanese Labor government and the ACTU well and truly shows that under Mr Albanese as Prime Minister of Australia the Australian Labor Party are beholden—nothing more and nothing less—to the union movement. But what is worse is that they are actually paying back their paymaster. When you look at the threat of damaging industrial action—and that is what this is designed to do—the Albanese Government is about to deliver that in full to Australians. Anybody who understands the history of the industrial relations act would understand that this type of behaviour was actually ruled out and made illegal by the former Keating government. In fact, even former Labor prime ministers—former Prime Minister Rudd and former Prime Minister Gillard—recognised the need to ensure that this type of behaviour did not return. They were pressed on the ACTU at the time, they were pressed by the union movement, but they stood their ground. They stood their ground and they refused to capitulate. Why? Because they understood that the last thing that Australia needed under their Labor governments was a return to the dark old days of economy wide shutdowns. Again, what is conveniently missed by those opposite in this debate is that under Labor's Fair Work Act—the Fair Work Act that was put together under the former Rudd and Gillard governments—multiemployer bargaining is actually allowed. Two employers can get together, if they want, and they can bargain for an enterprise agreement. What they also forget to tell the Australian people is that under Labor's Fair Work Act—which they are now saying is just not working, and they certainly didn't say that the last time they were in government—there is also a low-paid bargaining stream. Again, what that does is permit multiemployer bargaining for low-paid workers. So, despite everything that those opposite are saying, Labor's Fair Work Act, as it currently stands—the act that they designed—already allows multiemployer bargaining, and already allows multiemployer bargaining for low-paid workers. In fact, when you look at why, under the former Labor government, this was actually inserted, the stream was designed for sectors such as aged-care and community services—the very sectors that the ACTU constantly refers to in arguing for an industry bargaining system. So you do need to ask yourself: if Labor's Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Act that was put in place by the former Labor government, at this point in time currently allows for multiemployer bargaining but also has the ability for employees to get together in terms of the low-paid bargaining stream, why is Labor making announcements with the ACTU that they would like to introduce multiemployer bargaining? Because we know that under the current streams you can't take strike action. So the only change that Labor are putting forward under the guise of allowing this type of bargaining, because it is already allowed under the Fair Work Act, is to acquiesce to their paymasters, the Australian union movement, and to allow industrial action, economy-wide shutdowns, under the Albanese government. Those who lived through the dark old days of the 1970s and 1980s will recall that, during those periods of time, industrial action was actually unlawful, but that did not stop people. You had general strikes, you had airline strikes, you had public transport strikes, you had beer strikes, you had waterfront strikes and you also had retail strikes. When Mr Albanese says that he would like to deliver full employment, real wage increases and productivity gains, and that that is what the summit is going to deliver, Blind Freddie could tell you that full employment, real wage increases and productivity gains are not going to be realised if the Albanese government legislates the ACTU's demands for sector-wide bargaining. You will also be able to have sympathy strikes. You can actually have all sorts of workplaces that have no relationship whatsoever with those who are seeking to go out on strike also able to go on strike. You could have workers in New South Wales taking industrial action, and workers in my home city of Perth would be able to go on strike in support of them. Tell me: when a business is forced to close because its workers are on strike, how does that deliver full employment? How does that deliver real wage increases? How does that deliver productivity gains? Ultimately, that is what Mr Albanese said the summit would deliver, and yet all we have seen so far is a talkfest, a glorified networking event, and then some window-dressing for decisions that, by and large, have already been made by the Albanese government to appease their union paymasters. On that note, it is a fact that unions currently represent less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce. Yet when you look at how many of them were invited to the summit, they had around 33 seats at the summit table. Small businesses, on any analysis, represent the backbone of the Australian economy, are well and truly the job makers of our economy and represent 41 per cent of our workforce. But Australians might be interested to know they had one seat at the table. Despite all of the rhetoric that we are hearing from Prime Minister Albanese—'I'm pro worker, I'm pro employer'—small businesses, representing 41 per cent of our workforce, had one seat at the summit, and unions, who represent less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, had over 25 per cent of the seats at the summit. In life, it's a very simple equation: a business that has to close employs no-one. That is what we are going to see if and when Labor go down the path of legislating the ACTU's demands of industry-wide bargaining. Imagine the impact that strikes will have on supply chains. Supply chains under the Albanese government will be absolutely crushed. What happens when you destroy a supply chain? It leads to instability in workplaces. When you have instability in workplaces, what do you end up with? Higher unemployment, less profitability within businesses and a negative impact all over the Australian economy. What are families and businesses looking for from the Albanese government? They're actually looking for a plan to address the rising cost of living. And yet what they have been given by the Albanese government? A government that is showing it's actually not interested in addressing the rising cost of living. Even after 100 days, we still have not seen anything concrete put forward that would do just that. But what we have seen is that it is more than happy to capitulate to and entertain outrageous demands from the ACTU. And as I said: general strikes, airline strikes, public transport strikes, beer strikes, waterfront strikes and retail strikes—that is what this government is going to deliver to the Australian people. That is not a plan to address the cost of living. 16:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thought Senator Rennick's contribution was going to be the most unhinged part of this debate, but Senator Cash well and truly took over from that. I want to acknowledge Michele O'Neil from the ACTU, who is in here, as well as Robert from the ASU. I gather they're here to hear Senator White's first speech. She is a really good unionist and, at the same time, someone who will make a fantastic contribution to the Senate. There are plenty of things I'm happy about with the election win. Obviously being in government and having the opportunity to change the country is significant, but I'm also pleased that the opposition kept Senator Cash in that portfolio because it is a real reminder to workers about who is on the side of the workers in this chamber. What if you went up to Australians now and asked: 'What was the last election about? What was a really significant thing? What did Albo really stand for in the election campaign?' I think they'd say, 'He wanted to see workers get a pay rise.' He was attacked for that by the now opposition. He was attacked for that in the media. But if you look at our record and what we have done in government, that is absolutely what we are focused on. The first act of the Albanese Labor cabinet was to support a wage rise for those on the minimum wage. We've also seen a commitment when it comes to aged-care workers and support for them to get a wage rise once that decision is made. So there is absolutely no doubt for the Australian people, and it's only further emphasised by the unhinged attack on the Jobs and Skills Summit that we've seen from the opposition. Those opposite still don't get it: we are on the side of workers; we are proud to be on the side of workers and we want to deliver for workers as part of an Albanese Labor government. It also shows that those opposite have learned nothing from the election campaign. They took no lessons from the election campaign. The Jobs and Skills Summit was about bringing people together. It was about trying to seek common ground. No-one involved in labour relations in this country thinks that the current system is working. That was clear in the lead-up, it was clear at the summit itself, and that's why we want to work together. It says so much about this opposition that they've completely missed the mark on that. They have failed to understand what our motivation is and why we are seeking to bring Australians together on this. The Jobs and Skills Summit did not culminate on Thursday or Friday last week; there is ongoing work that will continue to happen. Also, it was about the lead-up work that was done by the government, the round tables that we had. I think there were almost 100 round tables held in different geographic regions, with different industries, and that led to the optimism that we saw on display on Thursday and Friday. We're all part of getting out there and listening. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and I are in Rockhampton and on the Sunshine Coast. We had round tables; we involved local workforces, councils, unions. We wanted to ensure that we heard from a broad cross-section of the community. Last week I was in Roma and did a community lunch with about 30 or 40 people from Roma, in western Queensland. They were excited and were openly talking about what the Jobs and Skills Summit would bring and the opportunities it would bring for regional and rural Australia as well. Then, on Wednesday before the jobs summit I was at the Business Council of Australia dinner, where the Prime Minister was the guest speaker. Those business leaders could not leave quickly enough to get to Canberra because they wanted to be part of the conversation as well. They took in the right spirit what this government is trying to achieve by working constructively with people. What is the opposition so upset about? Why are they so unhinged? Why are we getting this ridiculous scare campaign of Senator Cash saying it's going to take us back to the 1950s or 1960s? No-one is advocating that. All we are wanting to see is that workers get a fair go and that they can bargain effectively to get a pay rise. But, as part of that, what we all want to see is the economic system working for the advantage of workers and also those people who want an increase in productivity at the same time. So it is completely reasonable for this government to go about consulting with people to find the best way forward and to try to work constructively where that happens and ensure that we can take the country forward as a result. That is why we were elected. That is how we intend to govern, and I think the Australian people are seeing a government that is committed to listening, that is committed to consulting and that is committed to working with everyone in the best interests of Australia. It shouldn't be revolutionary. That's actually how governments of all persuasions should act. But the fact is it is revolutionary, because for 10 years we saw none of it. We saw 10 years of deliberate low wages because that was actually a deliberate design feature of the economy that the former finance minister set. This government is committed to turning that around. We're committed, where possible, to working with all cross-sections of the economy to ensure that we can achieve these goals and achieve these gains, and the Jobs and Skills Summit was a key part of that. But their reaction is absolutely illustrative of the response from those opposite. They are failing to see the direction that this government is taking and failing to see the support of the Australian people for wanting to take the country in this direction. They are missing the mark. They are reverting to their same old scare campaigns. It isn't going to work, and it isn't going to distract us from achieving the goals that we want to achieve. If you look at the last decade, real wages have gone backwards in this country. The opposition, whilst in government, spent 10 years looking for every opportunity they had to attack workers. We saw from Senator Cash, when she was a minister, the attack on unions and raids on union offices. They had antiworker legislation that they tried to introduce under the cover of the pandemic as well. Now, instead of focusing on the positives of bringing Australians together at the Jobs and Skills Summit, they are trying to run a desperate scare campaign, and we've seen that in their contributions to this MPI. They haven't learnt that the Australian people want an opposition who are constructive, one that will work with the government to improve legislation, as we did in the previous parliament. The Australian business community understands that. The social welfare sector understands that. The unions understand that. But it's something that the opposition is still failing to heed. The Albanese Labor government know that we need to get wages moving again. That is why we were so focused on the Jobs and Skills Summit being a success. We know how important this is to the Australian people, and those people have been doing it tough after 10 years of no wages growth. But, despite the opposition's scare campaigns, this was a summit that brought together governments, employers, unions and the broader community, including David Littleproud as the National Party leader. The summit came up with a solution to build a bigger and better trained and more productive workforce that's focused on boosting real wages and living standards while creating more opportunities for Australians as well. The one thing that all sides agreed on is that we needed a new approach and that the current industrial relations system isn't working. The Albanese Labor government has listened and is acting. We will legislate to create more flexibility for workers and businesses to reach agreement and get wages moving. We are making changes to close loopholes in the Fair Work Act, loopholes that allow wages to go down. Instead of looking for solutions, the opposition are running the same tired scare campaigns that they did in government. They aren't wanting to work together to improve the system so that it's working for businesses and workers and we can increase productivity and improve wages. They talked a lot about small business, but the fact is that the small business council of Australia were represented. What they said and what Alexi Boyd said was: 'What we're hearing from our members is some of them are saying that this is something they would like to look into.' It's as simple as that. So we have seen some constructive comments from the small business community. As the Prime Minister said this morning on ABC radio: I see myself as pro-business and pro-worker. I see that there is common interest between business and unions, that Australia works best when we're all headed in the one direction, when there's that spirit of cooperation, and that is the spirit which I wish to foster. That's the spirit that I saw in evidence over the two days of the summit. You can see the clear contrast there of a government that wants to make progress on these issues, because we understand how important they are for the Australian people. We want to see unions being able to represent their workers and being able to achieve success for their workers in terms of productivity, in terms of wages and in terms of job conditions. We also understand that we need businesses to thrive at the same time, and that's what bringing people together at a summit will achieve. None of the nonsense that we've seen from those opposite is going to achieve anything. We are going to be focused on delivering for Australian workers, on delivering for the Australian community. Workers of Australia will know that an Albanese Labor government is absolutely on their side and we will always be on their side. 16:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This is a great matter of public concern. As inflation and cost of living skyrockets Australian workers were hoping for a pay rise to keep up. Instead, the Albanese government is using the Jobs and Skills Summit as cover for flooding the country with unsustainable immigration levels. Prime Minister Albanese's immigration flood will increase the number of workers looking for work and that will keep Australian wages down. What a sick joke, the Labor Party increasing immigration to suppress wages as its way of fighting for the workers. Pretending to care about workers is a signature of the Albanese government's approach. Instead of pretence, we need comprehensive reform in this country. The Fair Work Act, which I am showing you here, is a mammoth, complex, confusing patchwork of red tape that gives small businesses nightmares and leaves workers, like casual workers in Central Queensland and the Hunter, without basic protections and entitlements. Senator Chisolm was correct when he said that everyone knows it is a problem. It certainly is a problem. Instead of this we need simple, effective industrial relations reform that doesn't just benefit the IR club of union bosses, lawyers and multinational companies. Next, we turn to the Albanese government's key strategy, the government's apparent intention to adopt industrywide bargaining. It will sledgehammer Australian businesses, especially small business, and it will sledgehammer workers. If the Albanese government proceeds with this repackaged pattern bargaining untold damage will be done to our economy. This isn't speculation. This has been done before. It has all happened before. A 2002 a Productivity Commission inquiry found that just two industrial disputes in the automotive industry the year before cost $630 million in lost production. In today's dollars that is more than $1 billion. It's worth explaining what this damage could mean. Currently, if workers want to go on strike against a particular company, as is their right—like the Qantas baggage handlers' strike happening right now—criteria must be met for the strike to be lawful. That's Qantas baggage handlers striking for benefits from Qantas. In industrywide bargaining the Qantas strike would automatically allow Virgin staff to go on strike, even though their pay, conditions and employer are completely different. Industry bargaining means entire industries can be shut down even if there's only one company treating employees poorly. Imagine one cafe having a strike and that automatically triggering strikes across the hospitality industry, even if cafes are already paying their employees well and treating them fairly. Paralysing entire industries because of disputes with one employer in that industry is reckless and in the long run will harm workers. It is done as a reward for union bosses donating tens of millions of dollars to Labor's election campaign. In return the Prime Minister gives union bosses more power so they can continue to betray honest union members in deals with multinationals. The Labor Party continues to abandon Australian workers. One Nation will continue to fight for workers and small businesses. (Time expired) 16:49 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I have great pleasure today in rising to contribute to this very important MPI. I note that it didn't take too long for this government to be able to come here and be up to their old tricks. In fewer than 100 days they're up to their old tricks. Already they're demonstrating that, really, it's just their union mates, their paymasters, who are in charge. On the back of channelling the former Hawke government with a summit of words and no action, now the government has heeded the union's clarion call for industry-wide bargaining power. Never mind the inflation crisis, which is an issue that all Australians are facing, along with high interest rates and spiralling cost-of-living pressures. No, this government is intent, post talkfest, on ensuring that unions are happy running amok in the Australian workplace. Businesses and industries of all sizes are rightly concerned at this sudden development. Why? Because, through industry-wide bargaining, unions may seek to weaponise strike action once again through protected action. This should alarm everyone. The risk of economy-wide shutdown is a regression back to the 1970s and 1980s, which Australians in this generation, and now for a couple of generations, have never experienced and wouldn't want to. Be in no doubt: industrial striking is an instrument of sector-wide bargaining. You don't have to go far to see the damaging impacts that strike action had on the Australian economy in the 1970s, when industry-wide strikes were common and the Australian industry was protected by high tariff barriers. Data assembled by Dr Jim Stanford indicates that in the 1970s the average number of industrial disputes each year was 2,300, yet in the period of 2010 to 2018 there was an average of 198. You only have to remember the dire state in Britain in the 1970s when strike action was out of control and crippling the British economy. It culminated with the famous winter of discontent. 'Crisis—what crisis?' yelled the British press during the dying days of a British Labor government. Now in 2022 it's back to the future again. In New South Wales we're seeing the rail strikes, particularly in Sydney, while up in Brisbane the CFMMEU is flexing its muscle and picketing in the CBD. It's also calling for industrial action at airports, which would pose a significant threat to an industry that is already precarious because of the COVID pandemic. We know what the disruption has been in that industry. The last thing they need is to have that compounded by further industrial action. Nothing emboldens unions more than the ascent to office of a federal Labor government, and that's what we're seeing right now. In the past, the Labor Party rejected the coalition's modest changes to the better off overall test. Interestingly, a 4 September 2022 Australian Financial Review article quoted former Prime Minister Paul Keating as saying that the BOOT is overprescriptive, while former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty said it was crazy. This government should work with the coalition to ensure that the Australian workplace remains harmonious. Our economy depends on this, colleagues. Our economy depends on this. This is the last thing that we would want to see. We cannot revert back to the bleak days of a bygone era. The last thing that this country needs during an environment of high inflation, high interest rates, increasing interest rates and out-of-control costs of living is unions gridlocking the Australian economy. It is for these reasons that I support this motion here today. Who is in charge of the agenda of this government? Who is in charge of the progression of our economy? It seems to be the unions. The unions were in force at the summit last week. There were over 30 union officials, 33 or 34. Yet there were only seven Western Australians present at that meeting. So who's in charge? Who's listening to the interests of the economy, listening to the interests of those that are creating the jobs and have actually got the jobs to make available for Australians? Sadly, that's what we're seeing. We're seeing that the unions are in control. This lot over here—those are their paymasters and that's what's happening. 16:54 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales What we are seeing here in the Senate today is yet another attempt by the coalition to attack workers at a time when their side of the economy, the capital, is extracting ever more money from the economic system and workers are seeing even less in their pockets. It is no wonder we have seen this motion moved by the coalition. They did not attend the jobs summit, they are bereft of positive ideas, so they come in here with a scare campaign that industry-wide bargaining is somehow going to cause sector-wide strikes and industrial chaos when, in fact, what we know is it will produce is fair wages, particularly for those feminised parts of our workforce, those with the least bargaining power, those which need the most help at the moment to deal with the cost-of-living crisis. It is no wonder the coalition come in here with a scare campaign. They are happy because profits are up, and shareholders are doing well. Profits are up, CEO bonuses are bigger than ever, and they are happy—tick! But while profits are up, wages are stagnant. Right now we know that an ever-smaller percentage of the national pie is going towards workers in the form of wages yet more and more profits are being delivered to shareholders, CEOs and senior executives, and we have an obligation to rebalance the system so it goes some way to delivering a fair go. Allowing unions to properly represent their workers with pay deals that deliver consistent rates across employers is not something to be afraid of. It is called fairness; it is called equity. I know that is what scares the coalition. But for most of the rest of the country, it is what they want the industrial relations system to deliver—fairness, equity and a growth in real wages. Small businesses and others that pay their workers fairly aren't concerned about these moves to put workers on a fairer footing. Isolating workers in some workplaces, particularly those with less bargaining power, has been the history of the last 30 years. What that means is that workers with less power, like those in feminised industries—the care industry, services industries—miss out on the better wages and conditions negotiated in workplaces with greater union density and greater ability to put economic pressure on the system. If change doesn't happen, those workers who have been left behind for the last 30 years will be left behind for the next 30 years, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots in this society will rise and rise. A minority of employers and their friends in the coalition are still pushing to have workers fragmented, unable to bargain together, because they recognise that workers coming together and fairly bargaining will see wages form a greater share of the economy. Workers looking at their pay cheques over the last decade have seen precious little growth and, often, reductions in the real wages they are bringing home, all the more so as we see inflation rise with cost-of-living pressures. It makes the astronomical housing prices in Australia and the growing cost of living a real and ongoing threat, and this parliament has an obligation to respond. What we do know is that our economy is more dominated than ever by the services and care industries, and this is something the ACTU has said clearly in making the case for industry-wide bargaining. As the economy has changed, we still have an industrial relations system that is 30 years old, that has failed to take into account those fundamental changes, particularly for those workers in smaller workplaces in the care sectors, often workplaces that are dominated by women. They need to have the ability to engage in collective bargaining and it is best done on an industry-wide level. As the President of the ACTU said, allowing workers to band together across workplaces to bargain is an essential way of getting wages moving again after a lost decade of flatlining wages and real wage cuts. It should be unacceptable to all of us that real wage cuts are projected year on year. We will not get meaningful movement on wages unless we can move on industry-wide bargaining. It scares the coalition but, I have to tell you, there are workers out there who have had 30 years of flatlining wages who are desperately keen for this parliament to do more than carp and complain but actually give them power, give them a fair wage and finally see a fair share of the pie going to those workers who deliver. (Time expired) FIRST SPEECH 68 FIRST SPEECH White, Senator Linda 68 16:59 The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call Senator White, I remind honourable senators that this is her first speech and, therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. 17:00 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Thank you, President. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, who have called this place home for tens of thousands of years. I acknowledge their unbroken connection to this land and give my deep respect to community members and elders past, present and emerging. Sovereignty was never ceded. I am immensely proud to be a part of a government that is seeking to change the Constitution to create a First Nations Voice to Parliament. Getting justice for people has dominated my working life. How that happened and why it happened goes to a series of experiences, decisions and opportunities, some within my control and some not, which have determined the life I have led to date. Like many people, there were things I could not change or affect, and sometimes there were sliding-door moments when my values or history guided me down a particular road or took me to places I could never have imagined. For some people, their pathway in life is determined by the circumstances of their birth. Governments, however, have the power to open up new choices and opportunities that would otherwise remain out of reach. The power we have in this place to change lives is significant. For many this power came into sharp focus during our COVID years, but the reality is that this power is there all the time. Not a day will go by here when I won't reflect on the consequences of our actions for those we represent. I've had the responsibility for the wellbeing of others before, as a union delegate, as a lawyer and as an elected union official, but the responsibilities we have here are definitely next level. As a union official, there is nothing as bad as finding out that 4½ thousand of your members have lost their jobs in the one day. Twenty-one years ago, next week, 16,000 Australians at Ansett lost their jobs and a further 60,000 in companies that relied on Ansett lost theirs. It remains one of the biggest corporate collapses in Australia's history. The social and economic harm it caused is beyond words. Suicides, marriage breakdowns, the loss of homes and security—the Ansett collapse broke many people. It was a brutal reminder that markets don't prioritise the wellbeing of workers. That is not their purpose and never has been. They are vehicles to create wealth, not ensure justice. It was a lesson in how decisions a government makes not to intervene also change lives. I will never forget the cruelty inherent in the Howard government's response at that time. It was left to union members to take up the fight for these Australians, and that's what we did. We won back nearly all of the $760 million owing to the Ansett workers. It took 10 years, but we got there. The resilience, bravery, leadership and collective action of the ASU's Ansett members in the midst of adversity made this possible and remain an inspiration to this day. As I see it, one of our main jobs here in parliament is to make all forms of justice less dependent on money, connections and class. When I say 'justice', I don't mean legal representation in a courtroom but the broader notion of social and economic justice, which is the measure we should test the outcomes of our policies against, whether it be in education, health, workplace laws or intervention in markets. This is difficult to achieve at the best of times, but now trust in governments, politics and politicians is at a low point. One of the hardest jobs that the Albanese government has ahead is to show people what governing in the public interest looks like. The creation of a national anticorruption commission will be an important part of what I see as a new compact with the Australian people. There is more to do beyond that, but it is a good start. I learnt about workplace justice pretty early on. Like many students, I worked at McDonald's to pay my way through uni. It was there I first felt the power of union organising and collective action. Our franchise was being bought back by the parent company, which had a reputation for not offering shifts to casual adult workers. I was 20 years old. Someone—not me—organised a clandestine night meeting in their home in downtown Camberwell with a union organiser from what is now the United Workers Union. We all joined the union that night and, I don't know how, I became the delegate. I didn't really understand what a delegate was but soon realised that it meant collecting union dues in cash and sending them to the union, talking to my workmates and, of course, dealing with management. We had little to lose, so our union membership was no secret. In the end, we kept our jobs longer than we would have otherwise, but the expensive staff like me were eventually rostered off. It was an early lesson about insecure work and the perils of casualisation. I also learnt that you don't always win, and winning doesn't always look the way you thought it would, but being brave and standing up for your rights is always important. I felt the power of collectivism for the first time, and it has been my driving force ever since. The experience at McDonald's made we want to work for a union, but despite my significant experience in remitting union fees I couldn't quite land a union job. It turned out to be easier to become an articled clerk at one of Australia's premier Labor law firms than to get a job at a union. I had a dream run as an articled clerk at Maurice Blackburn and Co. My first day was instructing two top barristers on a manslaughter trial, and that was followed by many more interesting criminal trials. I was hooked. My strike rate for acquittals was far higher than in the legal system generally. Maybe I just represented a disproportionate number of innocent clients, or maybe the fact that my clients had the money to pay for top-dollar legal representation had something to do with it. Whilst we are all equal before the law, justice comes at a cost, and results are all too often related to the quality of the representation you can afford. Maurice Blackburn also brought me into contact with people during the hardest times of their lives. I am forever grateful to the many dedicated lawyers who shared their knowledge and impressed on me the need to listen and understand what is going on for clients, both legally and personally. Learning how to give people straight advice about their prospects has held me in good stead ever since. Near the end of my time at Blackburn, my focus was on acting for people who had been sexually assaulted by members of the clergy. Countless people came forward and shared their stories with me. Some had never told their families and loved ones of their experiences. I was honoured to have had this trust. Now that I'm in this place, I look forward to seeing the National Redress Scheme in operation, while also recognising that full redress is just not possible. Money can never give a kid their childhood back or undo their trauma. Working at Blackburn allowed me to practice my newfound union organising skills. I recruited around 70 new members to the union in the then un-unionised workplace. A couple of the foundation members, George Georgiou and Sabine Wakefield, are here today. I treasure the fun and friendship we have shared both at and since leaving Blackburn. A shout-out, too, to your partners, Julie Spring and Lindsay Wakefield, who are also great friends. Unsurprisingly, my organising success brought me to the attention of Lindsay Tanner, who was in the process of changing the course of the Federated Clerks Union, now known as the Australian Services Union. I joined the Tanner team and was elected to state council. I became heavily involved as a rank-and-file member. I was someone who could be relied on to show up when needed. That was when my political education really began. My wrangler back then was David Leydon, who became a very dear friend and who is one of the most committed unionists I know. After a decade of working in a law firm, I finally got that union job and joined the Victorian Clerical and Administrative Branch of the ASU. This move gave me the chance to work with three of the best union leaders I have known: Gaye Yuille, Martin Foley and Ingrid Stitt. These are three people I would always want beside me in a fight. Gaye has been a mentor to many women and taught me that if you are a successful woman you have a duty to bring other women along with you—something I try to do as often as I can, because if I don't do it, who will? With the support of Gaye, Martin, Chris Woods, John Gazzola and Anne McEwen, a year later I moved to the ASU National Office as Assistant National Secretary. My work with the ASU has given me an up-close and personal view of corporate Australia. I've met CEOs and chairs and heard them explain how they operate and, more importantly, how they see the people who work for them. I've campaigned alongside thousands of ASU members and delegates during those years. I've also seen how work has been changing. These changes—casualisation, outsourcing, the growth of the gig economy and the constant political attacks that undermine pay, conditions and the ability to collectively bargain—remain. Industrial relations is not a 'fair fight', and any new laws must take this uneven power balance into account. Workers are not just a line item on a balance sheet. They are partners in the success of a business and deserve to be treated as such. I was in the fight against Work Choices, just as I've been against many other ideological attacks on workers, their families and the nation over the years. We didn't always win, but we lived to fight another day. I want to recognise the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its affiliated unions. All strength to your arms, Sally and Michele! The movement could not have two better leaders at this important time. I've already mentioned a number of people who worked with me at the ASU and in my union career, but can I also thank Emeline Gaske, Imogen Sturni, Abbie Spencer, Scott Cowen, Joseph Scales, Julie Bignell, Irene Monro, Jo Justo, Gillian Strong, Fouzia Aden and Jody Miles. We did some amazing work together, and you always made me look good. One of the wins I will always hold dear is the 2012 equal pay case for over 200,000 non-government social and community services workers across Australia. It took a relentless campaign from union members and officials who lobbied the then Labor government without mercy, standing strong behind the dignity of women's work. My current Senate leader, then finance minister, was one of those who bore the brunt of that lobbying. Our disagreements were more about style than substance, and it is my hope that all has been forgiven. We won pay rises of between 27 and 43 per cent plus safety net increases delivered over eight years. It took over six years of continuous campaigning, a change in the equal pay laws and a long and detailed Fair Work Commission case to get that result. It shouldn't have taken that much time and that much work, but it did. Still, the reality is it wouldn't have happened at all without the support of federal and state Labor governments. The equal pay case predominantly changed the lives of women workers in the community sector forever. Some extremely underpaid people saw increases of $700 per week. That case narrowed for gender pay gap, but shamefully it is the only case that has ever been won federally. The commitment of this government to address the pay gap and the value of women's work is something I want to be a part of. Australian women deserve no less. Superannuation is yet another area where women get a raw deal. The gap between the retirement savings of women and men is greater than the gender pay gap. Australians' retirement savings have too long been an ideological plaything of the government, unconcerned about real outcomes for women and more about who is on the board of an industry super fund. Instead of focusing on making super work for women and others who need it in retirement, opponents of superannuation constantly tried to undermine our system. Superannuation, which provides dignity in retirement for people who have worked hard their whole lives, should be above petty partisan politics. For many of us, our families set our values and shape our lives from the start. Mine was a small family from the beginning, but now it's only me, my dear brother, Michael, and Michael's wife, Julie. I want to acknowledge the support Michael and Julie have given me over some difficult times. Michael and I often discuss politics and world affairs and occasionally motorsport. As voters in a marginal seat, your opinion and views not only influence my thoughts; your vote also has, on occasion, determined government, including in the last election. Thank you for being my very own marginal seat focus group. Neither of my parents, John and Freida, went to university. It wasn't even a consideration for my smart parents, who worked incredibly hard all their lives. They believed strongly in public education; Michael and I were the first in our family to go to university. Both my parents left school and started work at the age of 16; my mother in clerical work and my father as a delivery boy for the company Gestetner. He worked there his whole life and eventually became managing director. One of my first memories is of my mother on the parents' committee of my kindergarten. Over their lives, my parents got involved in the golf club, the arial motorbike club, Rotary, Probus, and even the calligraphy society, being office bearers, writing newsletters and talking to people. That was our home life, getting involved. Knowingly and unconsciously, I follow that example. At Melbourne uni I was a member of the law students society, the commerce students society, the symphony orchestra, the uni revue, the netball club and probably many more things. It's amazing I had time to study! Since being elected to the Senate, I have had congratulatory messages from people from those days, which is surely a testament to getting involved. My involvement with boards and committees has committed throughout my life, right up until my election to the Senate. I have loved learning about community and public institutions and their work along the way. Needless to say, I've spent many, many, many hours on Labor Party committees—those stories I will save for my memoirs. My paternal grandfather, grandmother, aunt and mother came to Australia in the 1930s to give their family a better future. My grandfather was a skilled glass blower. Despite this economic contribution, the family were interned during World War II. My paternal grandparents lived and worked in Marrickville, and life for them was often difficult. Neither set of grandparents owned their own homes. They hoped that their hard work would give their children a chance to own their own homes, and it did. Sadly, housing affordability is far worse now than it was then. Working hard doesn't guarantee you will ever be able to afford a house—another critical policy area to work on in this place. I am forever grateful that my parents introduced us to the arts. From a very young age I went to live theatre, to galleries and to exhibitions like the Archibald prize. I had the chance to learn the viola at school, which was a smart choice as it turns out. There was always a place for a second-rate player like me in orchestras. Violinists are a dime a dozen and have a much harder time getting a gig! It didn't really hit home that the exposure to the arts I had as child did not happen for everyone until I was on the board of the Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Like many public arts organisations, ACMI runs programs for schools. One program provides fully subsidised travel for children from Melbourne's west to come to the museum. Many of the kids had never been to the city before, let alone to a museum. The delight, wonder and surprise of discovering a new world of possibilities at institutions like ACMI is an experience no child should miss out on. That is the power of the arts and the creative process. The arts let us delve into other worlds and see ourselves and our society reflected back, for better or worse. They allow us to imagine new possibilities and better ways of doing things. People like to talk about the economic value of the arts, but their true value goes far beyond dollars and cents. Artists and creative professionals are talented, clever and possess the power to impact lives through their skill. I stand in awe of the things they do. I am proud that in Victoria we have led the nation in recognising the power of our creative industries. I am very glad that, after nearly a decade, we have an arts minister, in Tony Burke, who takes these things seriously. Getting cultural policy right changes how we come to know ourselves, how we come to know others and how the world comes to know Australia Before I conclude I want to pay tribute to my predecessor Senator Kim Carr, a titan of the left in Victoria whose contribution both as a minister and as a senator has been widely recognised. It is fair to say many are looking forward to his forthcoming book—not all with trepidation. I also pay tribute to Senator Kimberley Kitching, who was taken from us far too early. It is worth reflecting briefly on the fact that I have had a long career before joining this parliament. I like to say that you are never too old to learn new things and that there are opportunities in everything. You never know where that road you choose might lead. Occasionally it leads you to the Senate! I thank Lisa Darmanin and the mighty ASU, Alan Griffin, Mat Hilakari, Matt Norrey, Jo Briskey and the United Workers Union, Susie Byers and Tim Ayres for their support of my latest career step. Margaret Beattie and Greg Peacock: your enthusiasm for this new adventure was also very important to me. To Gavin Jennings: thanks for your support and wise council over many years. Thanks to the many people who have come from Melbourne to watch my speech, in particular the members of my book club. Our discussions, no doubt, will continue to be a mixture of politics and literature. I would like to thank Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for many years of friendship and support. It is an honour to be part of the team. I also acknowledge my new staff team, Mark, Ben, Ekta and Jess, for all their hard work in establishing the office. It is my hope that together we will achieve a lot and have a bit of fun on the way. Finally, thank you Marita and Rachel for the pre-speech start treatment! I am not here to make my name or build my career. I am immensely proud of the battles I have fought, the things I have achieved and the comrades I have made. That is not to say that I don't have anything to prove. One promise I can make is that no-one here will die wondering what I think. People will always know where I stand, and already know that I'm not afraid of saying what's on my mind. I am not about to change the habits of a lifetime. Just as I have in other arenas, I will fearlessly and, some may say, relentlessly pursue action that will make our national community and the state of Victoria a better place for all of us. Australian democracy is more fragile than we realise. It has suffered damage in recent years, and I think everyone in this parliament has an important role in restoring the public's trust in the political process. We must remain able to consider turning points in our thinking. We might not agree with each other or those who are advocating to us, but not listening is always a mistake. In lobbying training, I always told our ASU members to remember that the politicians they meet are no better than they are and that they know far more about their own issues than the politicians they are meeting do. I still believe this and will not forget that advice. I'm pretty sure, though, that there are a few people here in the gallery who wouldn't let me forget if I tried, anyway! There's no doubt in my mind that governments change lives, that strong progressive Labor governments change them for the better. But sometimes governments need a helping hand to stay on track. As I often say, sometimes we need someone else to show us our best selves. In thinking about how to conclude this speech I thought of my mother and her love of jigsaw puzzles that covered our dining room table at home, sometimes for weeks on end. In many ways my career has been like a series of jigsaw puzzles, each more complex than the last but building on the skills learnt before to reveal a new picture each time. This may or may not prove to be the hardest puzzle I attempt in my career, but the level of complexity and the picture of a fairer and more just nation that I hope to reveal is a challenge that I'm very much looking forward to tackling head-on, always alongside my colleagues, comrades and the community. I thank the Senate. Cadell, Senator Ross 72 17:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order I now call Senator Cadell to make his first speech and ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. 17:25 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales In just over two months on a Sunday afternoon at about this time a driver will exit Forrest's Elbow on Mount Panorama for the last time. They will hit 300 kilometres an hour going down Conrod Straight before going through the Chase and taking Murray's Corner. Seconds after that they will take the chequered flag of the Bathurst 1000. As they sit alone in the car crossing the line, soaking up their victory and achievement, this will be one of the greatest moments of their life. Their name will go on the Peter Brock Trophy. They will stand upon the top step of the podium and celebrate their victory. But as they stand there they know that it is a team of people behind the scenes—the mechanics, the engineers, the apprentices, the trainers, the sponsors, the people that helped them out years ago in junior classes and many more—that they share the prize with. The same stands for me today. Even though it is my great privilege to have my name upon this desk and my office, to be known as Senator Cadell from the New South Wales Nationals, it is the love, support, help and so much more from the people in the gallery today and people watching from home that have got me here. Most of all, most importantly today, know that you have given me your trust, and I will not let you down. Today in my first speech in this place I would like to do two things: I would like to talk about how I arrived behind this desk and what I plan to do behind it. Because we are limited in time, I am sorry to the dozens of people I will not name today, but know this: if you are here, you are valued; if you were invited, you are respected; and if you weren't, I probably messed up. When I look around this place I see military veterans, community activists, leaders, corporate achievers, union representatives and so many more high-performing people. I have heard powerful speeches with firsthand experience of pain and misfortune delivered with such passion, and I find myself feeling somewhat of a pretender, like a charlatan, undeserving of really being here, because mine is a story with as many failures as successes and as many disappointments as celebrations. In the words of the Hunter, where I am from, I am a bit of a plodder. But then I look at the people up there, I think of those friends who can't be here and I know that I must have done some good, because they have stuck with me through all of that and lifted and propelled me to this day. So again, straight off the bat, thank you all. To Mum and Dad, you ruined any chance of having me deliver a powerful speech about overcoming disadvantage and adversity by giving my sister, Jane, and I a wonderful, safe middle-class upbringing where I felt loved and supported my whole life. Sure, it may have come with a love of a punt, a fondness for motorsport and firearms, a sense of humour that can best can be described as strange, an addiction to State of Origin football and the Bathurst 1000 and too many trips into floodwaters on the farm in unsafe vessels that had an uncanny ability to attract snakes. But you helped me in every way you could, in every way you can, at every time I asked. It is because of you that I am the very best version of a bogan I can be—and my sister, Jane, turned out okay as well. Also here are my chips off the old bogan, Lachlan and Mitchell, and I am proud of the men they are becoming. I do need to apologise to them for passing on the same sense of humour that I was cursed with, but I know they are super proud of their dad and I want to make sure that in my time here I do some things that mean their lives are safer, longer and happier. We have a saying amongst the Cadell boys: it doesn't matter how you go as long as you try your best. I will be doing that for you in this place. To their mother, Simone: thank you for the gift of our wonderful boys. Thank you for the 20 years of your life you shared with me. I know you will continue to do amazing things with yours. Madam President and colleagues— this is a risky bit—I'm sorry for this, but my Star Wars fan kids feel I must do this. Lachlan and Mitchell: I am the Senate. To my wife, Bethan: just when I thought my life was destined to wind down to an average footnote over the last few chapters, no longer worthy of love or success, just merely happy to still be here, you came along and ruined that. I'm once again finding myself living my best life as Rossco, loving you in our little beach shack with our kids and our kitty cats, thousands of miles from your home in Wales. Thank you for your love. Thank you for keeping me in line with your never-ending source of motivational tips, normally delivered with a slap or a loving Kermit face. My favourite still was upon pre-selection: 'Don't become an arsehole.' Many even sitting around you today would say that's only about 40 years too late. To Anwen and Leo sitting at home: I'm lucky to have you both in my life. I know life gets confusing at times with our bigger family, but know that just means you have more people who love and care for you. Other family here today include my godfather, Uncle Stew; Aunty Effie; my cousin Alyssa; and others online, including Melissa and Fiona. At high school, my life was going to be so simple: join the Royal Australian Air Force as a fighter pilot, let them tell me what to do for 40 years and then retire. A semi-dicky ticker and circumstances put an end to that after surviving the most brutal recruitment day I've ever seen at the old Sydney office that saw about 200 of us whittled down to half a dozen at the end of the day. I had done all I could to achieve this with no other thoughts. I joined the Air Training Corps, the cadets, with 16 Flight at Blacksmiths and became a cadet underofficer. This was one of the most enjoyable periods of my life. From that day right up to today, with Hatchy—now Wing Commander Hatch, about to become Group Captain Hatch—we still catch up with Humphrey, Big Dog, Arkin, Pete and Brommy to have a brew and tell some lies. At school, I selected a lot of subjects I wasn't actually good at and didn't like to qualify, but, again, it wasn't to be. So I was essentially lost. I worked at a bank. I played video games semiprofessionally. I learnt to fly. I chose a uni degree to sign up to based on an American sitcom. I found that, unlike school and TAFE, unis have bars and proceeded to waste the next two years doing first-year commerce. Again, I met some great people: Pete; Galloway; Shane Fitzgerald, who is here today with my cousin Alyssa, who he ended up marrying; Pommy; Wizzo; Teddy Bear; Phil; Donna; Joorgen; and Reg. We even had a crack at politics with the People Like Us Shouldn't be in Power Party. Oops! During this time I found politics and somehow had an understanding of the campaign and the way it works. I enjoyed it and I wasn't bad at it. I became a member of—dare I say it—the Young Liberals Bel-Air branch, which was named after a pub, not a TV show. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator CADELL 300134 Yes, I know. We worked with Marty Musgrave; Simon Westaway; Shane, again; Ian Benson; Jenny Palmer; and a great bunch of members. We had a great time working on policy, with the highlight being the performance incentive scheme for students. As good as the policy was, we very much preferred getting that acronym through the Liberal Party state council. Think about it. During this time I had the great privilege of also being employed by Mr Greg Hansen, then country vice president of the Liberal Party, who is also here today. His learnings and knowledge still come in handy. The No. 1 lesson, he told me, in a political argument is: if you don’t have a big stick, make one. It hasn't always worked out the way I planned but maybe sometimes I just make my sticks too big. We shared so many campaigns but ultimately fell short in the one that mattered the most. I am always sorry that didn't work out; you would have done great things on the red leather of New South Wales. Thank you for being here. It was also during this time I met so many people in this parliament and in the New South Wales Parliament, like Senator Marise Payne, Jason Falinksi, Alex Hawke, Gladys Berejilkian, John Brogden and, more importantly, the Hon. Ben Franklin MLC. We worked together on my regain the movement campaign for state president along with Tony Chappel and, again, Martin Musgrave. Then in 1999 it was over. I was burnt out and over it. But history always catches up with you and it was in those times Ben ended up bringing me to the Nats. My parent's property at Cliffy was in the City of Cessnock. One day, almost 10 years after my last political involvement, Ben reached out over Facebook looking for someone to work on the 2011 campaign. He wanted more mongrel in his campaigns and he didn't know a bigger mongrel than me. In the Nats I found a home for my views and for my fight for more for non-capital city Australia. I also found a place filled with friends from the Nats head office team over the years, with Ben, Greg Dezman, Nathan Quigley, Tom Aubert, Tony Sarks, Kathy Chalmers, Dominic Hopkinson, Will Coates, Issy Gillespie and later Brad Vermeer, Sam Pearn, Olivia Kerr, Stephen Mudd and, as is tradition for New South Wales Nationals, I have intentionally left out Douglas Martin. I also had the pleasure of serving under three chairs—the Hon Niall Blair, Mr Bede Bourke and Mr Andrew Fraser—and hand over the director's role to Joe Lundy, all passionate Nats, all very different but again all dedicated to service the regions. When it came to the preselection, so many in the gallery today, some of whom ironically don't get on with each other, came behind me and helped me out. When I was down, my triple angels of Senator Nash, The Hon. Bronnie Taylor and Jocellin Jannson came to the fore. When I needed some extra advice I had Ben and the Tamworth crew of Bede Bourke, Barnaby Joyce, Russell Webb, Liz and Ian Coxhead—my family away from home. When I needed practise I had Sam Faraway, Nat Openshaw, Jeff McCormack and Jock Sowter. Despite all the dramas surrounding him at the moment, I need to thank John Barilaro. I enjoyed working with him on the 2019 campaign and I must thank him for his support in my career. And just like my real family, these people have always been there for me when I needed it. The New South Wales Nats are a family that can fight now and drink later, bag you today and lift you tomorrow. We occasionally muck up because we wear our hearts on our sleeves and sometimes lead with our chins. But when you care so much about what you do, that can sometimes happen. That passion is exemplified in my office. With a group of people who have limited experience with government, we are all largely finding our way together, but with a hunger of living almost exclusively in safe Labor seats and at least wanting a shot at putting forward a different case. Andy, Nick and Ash, who have done the hard yards as young Nats have had their chance in the majors. Josh and Les have bought some government experience to the team and are nailing some policy work for us. And then there is Adz, Adrian Stewart Roach, my office manager. Have we not had a journey? We have worked together, travelled together, raced together, celebrated together and lost together. We joked about becoming a senator to get into a Vegas nightclub in 2014 and now we are here. Sorry you had to leave Porsche to come on board, Bob, but I couldn’t have done this without you, so let's make good things happen. So, here I am standing somewhere I thought I would never be, surrounded by people I admire and watched by people who put me here. What will I do with that chance? I want to fight the imbalance of power between the cities and the regions, between the have and the have-nots, between the loud and the silent. How is it fair that, in this place, the executive controls so much and those elected so little? When my party, the Nats, advocates for decentralisation of government and departments, why not start here? Why not allocate some serious budget to each elected member to administer for federal expenses for constituents and not-for-profits, rather than having to go cap in hand to a minister and let them judge whether someone is worthy of dental on Medicare or extra NDIS or whether a club needs a new hall? Why not let a member be judged on their personal priorities as well as their party's? How is it fair that previous governments have taken away the power of farmers to collectively bargain with massive corporations for a fair price for produce, leaving them working 24/7 for a minimum wage? How is it fair that the regions are forced to pay the price for the never-ending consumption of the city, its hunger for energy and resources, with land restrictions and job losses that offset it? Where I am from, we have given up any hope of government doing anything for us. We now just hope they don't do anything to us. How is that a good thing? How is it fair that we allow a formula called the cost-benefit ratio, generated by people in big, shiny city buildings, to dictate what we spend taxpayers' money on, when it always favours the many over the few? CBRs measure benefit and not need. They prioritise thousands saving 10 minutes going to and from work over dozens having a safe, sealed road to ensure they come home to their families. As Nats, we are used to the cries of rorts and favouritism when grants vary from the accountants' choices. I am actually proud of that. I love that. I am excited that people from all sides stand up and say they want projects that have community merit more than projects from grant writers that have talent. If we, as elected officials, always do what we are told, why are we here? Are we the window dressing for the executive and the bureaucracy, or do we really want to make a difference and contribute? During the pandemic, people decided what was important and they voted with their feet. When showing up to the office wasn't a thing, they moved to the regions, they moved to the coast, they moved to the places that fed their soul and enriched their life. They did this in spite of poorer roads, lesser hospitals and fewer services. So let's stop feeding the infrastructure of the cities, driving up house prices with tens of billions of dollars' worth of attractions. Let's put that money into the regions so that people can have the best of both worlds: a life and a community. We saw a demonstration of this city-think in my last role at the Port of Newcastle. Sometime in 2013 or 2014, in the bowels of the New South Wales Department of Finance, someone had the idea of restricting competition for Port Botany for another $50 million to $100 million in privatisation income. What a great deal for the taxpayer! What they failed to give any thought to was the farmers in north-west New South Wales who have to pay an extra $20 a tonne to ship their grain or the Upper Hunter winemaker who pays an extra $1.50 a bottle to export their wine or the aluminium smelter five kilometres from the port that has to send their product 165 kilometres by road to export it. Every single year a decision based on a CBR costs the community more than the extra money it raises for the state in total, but not a single person in government or opposition has the courage to admit the mistake and get it fixed. Why? It is because the bureaucracy is the ultimate too-big-to-fail corporation, and that is a disgrace. The people of the Hunter need a plan B. We are willing to make it happen ourselves, and I had Craig, Tanya and Briggsy fighting the hard fight with me. But, again, the decision-makers have decided we don't deserve that right. I respect this country, this parliament and this chamber very much, but I am here to be a right royal pain in the posterior to the status quo. All the people that I've mentioned here today got me here. All the people in the gallery today who have trusted me deserve no less, and they will get no less. As I have all my life, sometimes I will fail and sometimes I will succeed, but I will always try. I love my Australia, warts and all. We're on an old land, but we're a young nation. We can be better, but we also have unimaginable potential. Thank you to the people in this chamber and the other place for making me feel as though I belong here, even though, as I have said, I have sometimes had my own doubts. I believe that within you and your offices lie the answers to so many of the problems we face as a nation, if we can find a way, as elected officials, to have a bigger voice. I look forward to working with my family, my party, my supporters and all of you so that together we can have a crack at finding that voice. Thank you. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 75 Membership 75 17:49 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 17:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee — Appointed—Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2022 election]: Senators Antic, Askew, Babet, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, David Pocock, Rennick, Reynolds, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Cox to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children Participating member: Senator Shoebridge. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Tabling 76 17:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a document relating to an order for the production of documents concerning animal welfare. 17:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to take note of the minister of agriculture's letter about OPD No. 1034, which was a Senate order to release animal welfare incidents reports in export registered abattoirs. I requested these documents after a distressing story was published in the Age detailing horrific animal cruelty at abattoirs. Many really disturbing incidents of animal cruelty were described. It was reported that vets employed by the federal agriculture department and stationed at export abattoirs spoke privately of feeling pressure from meat processors when raising animal welfare concerns. My request to table these reports was agreed to by the Senate on 9 February this year. But on 17 February, when the documents were due, Senator Bridget McKenzie told us that they were unable to comply and intended to respond at the earliest possible opportunity. On 29 March these excuses were echoed again by the Morrison government. Well—surprise, surprise—that opportunity never came. Days became weeks, weeks became months, until very conveniently for the coalition the election arrived. It was, frankly, disgraceful to have run down the clock before an election to avoid producing documents that the Senate had ordered them to produce. I am thankful that the Morrison government is no longer, but we still live with the consequences of their inaction. We are still waiting for those documents. I do appreciate that the new minister for agriculture, Senator Watt, has now responded to my request for the OPD and welcome his assurance that he will table the documents, within this parliamentary sitting fortnight, with optimism. If the new government is serious about transparency they now have an opportunity to act like it. Every day that goes by without answers is another day that animals continue to suffer. 17:52 Sen 283585 Western Australia ator O'SULLIVAN (—) (): I would like to take note as well. Coming from Western Australia I fully appreciate and understand the significance of the live sheep export industry. The live sheep export industry is an important contributor to Australian agriculture. It's a vital source of revenue and jobs for our rural and regional economies, particularly for my home state of Western Australia. The livestock export industry in general contributes $1.7 billion to Australia's national economy every year. The live sheep export trade alone is worth around $250 million, with about 85 per cent of that income generated in Western Australia alone. Since 2018 the industry and its regulatory framework has undergone significant change. This commitment by industry demonstrates the industry's strong desire to ensure a sustainable industry for future generations. The industry has not sought to ignore the responsibilities that it has to animal welfare. Rather, changes have delivered an improved animal welfare performance. Rather than seek to improve and refine the regulatory welfare of the trade, there are many here in this place who would rather see a ban on the live sheep export trade altogether. Banning live-sheep exports is reactionary and would only result in substantial job losses throughout the industry. It would decimate an industry that, like mining and other industries, has underwritten the success of the Australian narrative since Federation. Those who seek to ban live-sheep export do not care about the generations of families who have contributed to this country with their hard work and sacrifice. Continuing to strengthen the oversight of the industry is a prudent path forward that will ensure a successful and sustainable future for it. Since 1985, there have been at least 10 government and parliamentary reviews that have examined the live-export system and its associated animal welfare issues. These reviews have led to significant regulatory reform of the animal welfare standards by which exporters must abide and have increased the level of oversight of the export process. We have seen evidence that a sensible approach does work. Every six months the minister for agriculture must table in parliament a report from the department that includes details of the livestock mortalities of every sea voyage. We all saw on television and on social media a few years ago those appalling images of cruelty and situations where animals were not treated humanely. Notwithstanding the fact that some of what we saw was confected by activists who were intent on portraying the industry and those voyages in a certain very negative way, we have seen the industry take enormous steps, significant steps, to improve conditions. These improvements have been led chiefly by the producers and the transporters themselves. The sheep mortality rate decreased from 14,000, or 0.8 per cent, in 2016 to just over 1,300, or 0.21 per cent, in 2021. That is a significant reduction. In view of the fact that more than 660,000 sheep were transported last year, this diminishing mortality rate serves only to highlight the industry's attitude towards better animal welfare. We know that producers, in particular, value the dignity of every single one of the animals they have in their care. We have seen a commitment by this industry to ensure that these animals are treated humanely on a journey. There are restrictions on the time of year that the ships can travel. Measures have been put in place so that veterinary officials are on board to ensure that safeguards are in place to ensure that animals are treated as humanely as possible. The COVID pandemic has served to underscore how food security has become a major issue for many of our livestock export destinations. Many countries simply cannot produce the food to support their populations, and they need security of supply. So Australia, and Western Australia in particular—Senator Sterle knows this very well, having worked in the transport industry—plays a critical role in ensuring that these markets are able to be met with good produce and in ensuring the supply of this to the countries that need it. If Australia, and Western Australia, is not supplying, then those suppliers are going to come from other countries that may not have the level of integrity that our industry in Australia has taken up. These countries will not be able to meet their needs internally and they will seek it elsewhere. We can't be assured of the integrity and safety that we in this country want to ensure. Only live export can meet the protein needs of countries where refrigeration is not always available. Phasing out the live-sheep trade will have wider trade implications for the exchange of products and services between Australia and the Middle East. The impact here is much greater and is beyond just the trade of sheep. It can impact many other sections of our trade relationships with many countries, particularly in the Middle East. Above all, it will have a real impact on families and jobs and people that derive their livelihoods from these farms, from these products and from these services. We would not want to see that, particularly in my home state, sacrificed on the altar of ideology by those that are just determined to see this trade wiped out. We're not going to see that happen. We will not see that happen. We can't allow that to happen, because it would be a devastation to the producers, to the families that rely on them and to everyone that's involved in this industry and has done absolutely everything that they can to support this industry and see the improvements that have remarkably been put in place. To see that reduction of mortality down to 0.21 per cent is a remarkable achievement that everyone in that industry must be really proud of. 18:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I too rise to speak to the benefits of our nation's world-class animal welfare standards. Time after time, we hear the Greens party come in either to this place or Senate estimates and denigrate our primary producers, livestock transport operators, our trading systems and our exporters and say they somehow should be ashamed of their hard work and should be somehow ashamed of having the best animal welfare standards in the world. They only speak to people in capital cities, because if you live out in rural and regional Australia—if you live out in rural and regional WA—you know how hard these men and women work to make sure their livestock is safe and to make sure their livestock is well-treated. You know exporters themselves and know how many changes have been made as a result of all sides of politics taking the treatment of animals seriously. We export live animals to over 130 countries around the world. It underpins local and regional economies. In particular, the live sheep trade in WA employs absolutely thousands of people and contributes significantly to regional economies. I was quite buoyed by Premier McGowan's commentary when the now agriculture minister Murray Watt of the Labor Party was all cock-a-hoop that he was going to shut down the live trade. Thankfully, the Premier in that state said, 'No, you're not, bozo.' Murray wouldn't know— Senator 207825 Senator Sterle, it's great to have you in the chamber, but that is amateur hour at best—Murray Watt standing up and proudly announcing that the city-centric Labor Party, supported by the Greens party, was seeking to shut down this industry vital to these regional economies. As the former contributor let the chamber know, this is actually about fulfilling a cultural need in certain countries. It's about recognising that certain countries don't enjoy the level of development that we do. They don't have refrigerated truck networks. They don't have the types of things that we take for granted, and this is meeting a need. If we can actually export safely and humanely, then that's absolutely what we should be doing. But, once again, we have the Greens in here seeking to make farmers ashamed of what they do and ashamed that they're involved in a world-class livestock industry. Australia provides a variety of livestock classes and breeds. When you look at it, it's not just sheep; it's cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats for feeder, slaughter, breeding and dairy purposes. They are the gamut of livestock that we export from this country. It's not just sheep. You often hear the argument: 'Why don't we just set up all these abattoirs and slaughter them here? We can sell these 130 countries and millions of customers chilled beef, chilled goat and chilled buffalo.' They don't have refrigerators. Their cultural practices are a little different to ours. They prefer to slaughter their own animals, according to their own local customs. Australia gives them that option in their home country, humanely, because if it isn't a live animal from Australia, with our world-class animal welfare protections in place, it is from somewhere else. And I can tell you, if you want to be proud of our country it's our animal welfare policies that you should be proud of. In terms of slaughter methods used overseas, we've got almost 600 abattoirs that have been approved to slaughter Australian livestock under the ESCAS system. The exact numbers are held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, as obviously they regulate the trade. In the case of Indonesia, our most important market, pre-slaughter stunning of cattle has grown enormously, from under 10 per cent five years ago to around 95 per cent today. That just shows that each and every day, each and every year, we are getting better and better at ensuring that world-class systems are in place, not just on ship but also when Australian livestock reach the offshore market, so we can make sure that they are slaughtered in a humane way. In terms of the OPD before us today, I note that the Albanese government says it's committed to integrity and transparency and that the current agriculture minister takes the orders made by the Senate seriously and seeks to provide the requested information at its earliest opportunity. Due to the broad scope of the order, 1,304 initial searches have returned a high volume of documents, so we all look forward to the minister actually being as transparent and as accountable as we seek him to be. The Senate is actually a very important mechanism in our democracy to ensure transparency of the executive government. In terms of Mr McGowan, as David Littleproud, the shadow agriculture minister, said, if we shut this trade down we're simply exporting animal welfare standards to other countries that don't have our standard, such as Ethiopia and Sudan. We've got a responsibility and an opportunity to get this right. Some of those opposite say that this is a diminishing market, that we can have all these local jobs and ship off the chilled product, not recognising that the markets actually don't want chilled product—we can already do that. The other argument is that it's a diminishing market and that as these overseas places get more affluent and more developed they won't seek this type of product. That's just not true. I hate to put facts on the table when emotion seems to be the only game in town, but it was worth $97 million last year, $113 million this year—right now—and $130 million-plus in the coming years. So this is a growing market—a growing market for our primary producers and a growing market for our livestock transporters and the regional service industries that support them—right across the country, not just in regional WA. So I would call on the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party—but particularly the Australian Greens—to support Australian farmers, because this is a global market. We export 80 per cent of what we grow, and we need to be proud of how we grow product in this country. We should be proud not just of growing our vegetable crops, our horticulture products, our grains but also of how we raise cattle, sheep, goats and all of our livestock products, instead of continually talking these people down, as if they need to go to bed ashamed of what they do every night. Young people in the cities are crying because they believe the lie that Australian livestock are somehow being treated inhumanely by Australian farmers, or as a result of Australian farmers running their business. It is a lie that is perpetuated by those who seek to shut down our livestock industry and to make sure we don't produce meat in this country. The sad fact of the reality, if they ever reach the fruition of that outcome, is that some other country that doesn't treat their livestock as humanely as we do will just fill the gap. That's the reality. I support the industry. I look forward to the minister actually providing the documents in the efforts of transparency and accountability, and I look forward to hearing from the Greens on how they want to shut our fabulous industry down. We won't stop standing up for it. Question agreed to. BILLS 79 BILLS Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 79

Climate Change Bill 2022

Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

First Reading 79 18:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 79 18:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Climate Change Bill 2022 It is no accident that one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Albanese Government in the 47th Parliament responds to one of the most urgent and pressing issues of our time—climate change. For too long, too much time has been devoted in newspaper columns across the country and in this chamber to the "climate wars", the political infighting that has seen Australia not just pause progress but go backwards, and miss the economic and jobs opportunities that accompany real action on climate change. This Bill represents an opportunity for this Parliament and our country. An opportunity to send a clear message at home and abroad. Not only does Australia have a government that is getting on with the job of providing a coherent policy to accelerate investment in renewable energy, transmission and storage— But we have a Parliament that is getting on with the job too. This legislation is important not so much because of what it obliges the government to do, although there are significant elements of that in the Bill. But more because of the message of stable, clear, coherent and necessary policy it sends to private investors that when it comes to renewable energy, Australia is open for business and raring to go. It sends the message that Australia is back as a good international citizen. That Australia now has a government and a Parliament that wants Australia to be a renewable energy powerhouse. The passage of this Bill will be important for the message it sends: For future generations—that we are determined to lift our game and be better for them; For our economy—because acting on climate change also means harnessing the opportunities of a renewable revolution; For business—who have been crying out for policy certainty after having the lane ropes changed on them time and time again; and For our nation—restoring our international credibility, and playing a constructive leadership role in the Pacific. For our regional neighbours, as for our fellow citizens in the Torres Strait Islands, climate change isn't a matter of projections and numbers—it's a current reality. The Albanese Government's introduction of this legislation at the first opportunity also signals that we are done talking, and we know now is the time for action. Now we know this legislation isn't the end of the work, it's only the beginning. The real task lies in the implementation and achievement of the goals we are outlining today. This Bill is quite simple. Simple, yet powerful. The Bill is a solid foundation, setting clearly and firmly, in Australian law, Australia's emissions reduction ambitions. It holds the government of the day accountable to the Australian parliament and the Australian people, on how it measures up to those ambitions, and how it is addressing this fundamental issue. Firstly, the Bill sets out the 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets, with the 2030 target a 43% reduction against 2005 levels. The Powering Australia policy platform that the Albanese Government took to the election underpins this 43% reduction. It represents an ambitious—and achievable—goal. Now I want to make an important point—the 43% is not a limit on emissions reduction ambition. On the contrary, we have said repeatedly that we see 43% as the floor on what we want our country to achieve. As we said in our updated Nationally Determined Contribution, it is our hope that the commitments of our industry, states and territories will yield even greater emissions reductions in the coming decade and into the future. I also make the point that we have just 88 months to achieve these goals. We have been waiting a long time, and now we need to get on with it. Secondly, the Bill provides that the minister responsible for climate change will give an annual climate change statement to Parliament. That annual climate change statement will be tabled in Parliament and will include an update on Australia's progress towards meeting those emissions reduction targets, as well as on climate change policy, relevant international developments and the effectiveness and impacts of the Commonwealth's policies, including in key sectors and in rural and regional Australia. Thirdly, a restored Climate Change Authority will provide the minister with independent, expert advice on that annual statement—and that advice will be published and tabled in Parliament. This will ensure ongoing transparency and accountability on these matters of international significance. The Australian community will be able to see what the independent authority thinks about the effectiveness of Australia's climate change policy, and how it is tracking towards achieving its targets. Fourth, the Climate Change Authority will provide advice on any new or updated emissions reduction targets to be communicated to the UN under the Paris Agreement—with that advice also to be published. That advice will be given to the government at least every five years, including for the 2035, 2040 and 2045 targets. The Climate Change Authority's advice will provide an independent, expert, authoritative assessment of Australia's contribution to global action. The Climate Change Authority will consult on its advice on targets, which will mean that Australian community will be able to contribute to that advice, and that it will provide an independent, expert, authoritative assessment of Australia's proper contribution to global action. The advice will take into account the temperature goals in the Paris Agreement and consider the physical impacts of climate change, and the benefits of the targets and policies, including for regional and rural Australia. Finally, the operation of the Bill itself will be subject to regular independent reviews, ensuring that it remains fit for purpose as Australia transitions to net zero. This Bill will be accompanied and complemented by the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which will draw upon this Bill to embed consideration of the emissions reduction targets and the Paris Agreement into the objectives and functions of a range of Commonwealth entities and schemes. These are programs and agencies that are already achieving results in the response to climate change. Inclusion of the targets in their functions and objects will provide an additional focus to their work, ensuring that we're all pulling in the same direction. This Bill lays the crucial foundation, upon which the policies and measures to come will be built. These policies include Rewiring the Nation, an enhanced safeguard mechanism, and Australia's first electric vehicle strategy—all crucial building blocks for Australia's transition to net zero. While the commitment to reach net zero by 2050 is a key target to be legislated by this Bill, the Australian people gave us a mandate for a more meaningful 2030 target, which we have now committed to achieve under the Paris Agreement. I'd like to acknowledge the spirit of constructive engagement on this Bill from the crossbenches of this Parliament. We have been very clear: a sensible government will consult across the Parliament and take on board sensible suggestions in keeping with our mandate. That has been and will continue to be our approach. Not everyone in this Parliament has indicated a willingness to participate in this process. Some have indicated they will simply oppose the Bill, indicating that they do not accept the message from the Australian people on May 21 that the time for action on climate is now. This is disappointing. It is also disappointing to the Australian business community, who have indicated very strongly that passing the legislation is important for investment certainty. The Business Council of Australia, Australian Industry Group, Minerals Council of Australia, Australian Institute of Company Directors, Investor Group on Climate Change, Australian Energy Council, Governance Institute of Australia, Responsible Investment Association of Australia, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, Clean Energy Council and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have urged bipartisan support for the Bill in front of us today. The Investor Group on Climate Change have welcomed the Bill as "an opportunity to unlock hundreds of billions of investment in climate solutions across the economy", just as the Minerals Council have recognised that it "provides certainty for Australia's industries". The Australian Industry Group have made clear the Bills "represent a very big improvement on the status quo—and the broader the support they receive, the stronger the basis for investment will be and that will underpin our ability to meet other economic and social objectives including high employment growth and improving living standards." BCA chief executive Jennifer Westacott said corporate Australia did not want a "divisive parliamentary debate over the target", while ACCI chief executive Andrew McKellar said "the best way to promote the planning and innovation that will underlie an efficient energy transition is through legislated bipartisan support." Community and environmental groups have also supported the Bill, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and Climate Council. The Climate Council stated "this new legislation can act as a springboard for Australia to cut emissions and grasp the incredible opportunities that are within our reach as one of the sunniest and windiest places on the planet." The Australian Conservation Foundation congratulated the approach and amendments in the other place "for shifting the dynamic on climate change in Australia from inaction to action...the bill has been significantly improved". Similarly, Australian Council of Trade Unions President Michele O'Neil has stated "all workers are being impacted by the planet becoming less habitable and safe with more frequent and extreme disasters and heat. We welcome the Albanese Government taking this critical step to ensuring climate action." But some in this chamber think they know more about business than the Business Council and more about commerce than the Chamber of Commerce. The opposition had a choice: a vote for progress or a choice to peddle the same, discredited scare campaigns we have seen time and time again. While the choice they have made is disappointing, the Government won't be deterred from proceeding with legislation which is important for achieving investment. The people and history will judge a political party which has sought to keep the climate wars going and stands against the necessary framework for unleashing private sector investment. The Government has been very clear. While this legislation is not essential for the Government to embark on the policy actions we sought and received a mandate for, it is best practice. The IPCC's 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change report confirmed that climate laws enable mitigation action by signalling the direction of travel, setting targets, policies, enhancing regulatory certainty, creating focal points for social mobilisation and attracting international finance. It will help provide the policy certainty and stability that the Australian community has called for. This in turn will help attract the investment and skills that are needed for the transition to net zero. Because the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. While we turn our back on renewable energy, the opportunities quite frankly go elsewhere. And we have the resources, capability and know-how to become a renewable energy superpower, not just in one part, but across multiple sectors such as clean energy, batteries and commodities such as aluminium, lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel. There is a significant export market waiting for us—if we get the levers right to take advantage. And that's what this Bill does. The new Government's approach to climate change has been welcomed here and abroad. Our friends and allies have been frustrated with Australia's approach in the past and have welcomed a government determined to play our role and seize the opportunities that good climate policy present. There is an optimistic mood that with commitment and clear action, we can and will make a difference. The Albanese Government has an agenda to do exactly that: Rewiring the Nation to modernise the grid, implement the Integrated Systems Plan and provide the country with more renewables, more transmission and more storage; Getting us to 82 percent renewable energy by 2030; A national electric vehicle strategy to increase access to affordable electric and hydrogen vehicles; A strengthened safeguard mechanism to get Australia's largest emitters on a gradual and predictable pathway to net zero, ensuring they remain competitive as the global economy decarbonises; A national battery strategy, to use our smarts and our international advantage in raw materials to not just supply minerals, but to build a domestic industry. It's a comprehensive plan which sits alongside the sensible and achievable targets laid out in this Bill. The passage of this Bill will send a strong signal about our priorities as a Parliament. This Bill may be simple in what it lays out—but it is significant in what it will achieve. There are many issues about which Members of this chamber will disagree. But the principle of holistic action on climate should not be one of them. Our country and this Parliament has wasted long enough delaying and denying. The time for action is now, we don't have a second to waste. Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill builds on the foundation of the main Climate Change Bill, contributing to Australia's climate response and supporting net zero. Meeting the climate challenge and realizing the opportunities presented by the transition to net zero, will require coordinated efforts across government and the economy. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reductions are supported by a range of government entities and schemes. The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 complements the Climate Change Bill by embedding consideration of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets into the objects and functions of the Commonwealth entities and schemes that could make the greatest contribution to reducing emissions for Australia. These entities include the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which facilitates flows of finance into the clean energy sector; the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, known as ARENA, which encourages the uptake of renewables by providing financial assistance and investment in renewable energy technologies; and the CSIRO, undertaking invaluable research underpinning emissions reduction efforts and clean energy technologies. The legislation for Infrastructure Australia, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and Export Finance Australia is amended to make the targets relevant to key functions, such as Infrastructure Australia's audits and infrastructure plans. The bill updates references to international climate agreements, within the amended legislation, to reflect the adoption of the Paris Agreement. This includes referencing the purposes in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement as a key consideration for the Climate Change Authority when performing its functions. The Climate Change Bill is the bedrock foundation on which climate change policy will be built. This bill will be one the first bricks laid on that foundation, and it will not be the last. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 82

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022

First Reading 82 18:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory 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 82 18:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill delivers on an election commitment of the Albanese Government to increase the income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC). Taking effect from 20 September 2022, this will ensure more Australians qualify for the CSHC, easing some of the cost-of-living pressures people are facing. The CSHC is available to Australian residents or special category visa holders who: have reached Age Pension age or veteran pension age; AND do not receive a social security pension or benefit, or veteran's service pension or income support supplement due to their income and/or assets. The CSHC provides access to Australian Government health concess10ns, including concessional co-payments for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines, the concessional thresholds for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net, and bulk-billed visits to a General Practitioner (at the doctor's discretion). Cardholders may also be eligible for additional concessions provided by state and territory governments or private businesses in areas such as public transport, ambulance services, utilities or council rates. To qualify for the CSHC, a person's adjusted taxable income, plus any deemed income from account based superannuation pensions, must not exceed the applicable CSHC income limit for the relevant tax year. Different income limits apply depending on whether the person is single or a member of a couple. There is no assets test for the card. The current CSHC income limit for a single person is $57,761 per year. This Bill increases the income limit for singles to $90,000 per year. The single income limit also applies to a person who is a member of an illness-separated couple, a member of a respite care couple, or a member of a couple whose partner is in gaol. The current CSHC income limit for each member of a couple is currently $46,208 per year, or $92,416 for the couple combined. This Bill increases the income limit for members of a couple to $72,000 per year, or $144,000 for a couple combined. An amount of $639.60 will continue to be added to the income test limits for each dependent child. The dependent child amount is linked to the Parenting Payment Single income test and will not be changed by this Bill. The CSHC income test limits are indexed on 20 September each year in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index in the preceding 12 months to June. The increases to the income limits under this Bill are equivalent to many years of annual indexation in a single step, and will substitute for annual indexation on 20 September 2022. Annual indexation will re-commence on 20 September 2023, ensuring the income limits continue to reflect cost of living increases into the future. The last time the income limits for the CSHC were increased above indexation was in 2001, following which indexation ceased until 2014. These changes are expected to allow more than 50,000 self-funded retirees to become newly eligible for the CSHC. The CSHC has been in place since 1994 as a means of providing access to health concessions for self-funded retirees. Like other Australians, many self-funded retirees are facing increased cost of living pressures in the current economic environment. This Bill helps to ease those pressures by allowing more self-funded retirees to access Commonwealth concessions on medical and pharmaceutical benefits, including a reduced PBS co-payment and lower PBS Safety Net and Extended Medicare Safety Net thresholds. For example instead of facing a PBS co-payment of$42.50, eligible self-funded retirees will now pay a maximum of $6.80 for any medicines listed on the PBS. The CSHC also provides access to other concessions that may be provided by state and territory governments and private organisations. The Albanese Government will continue to work tirelessly to support older Australians with cost of living pressures. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 83

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 83 COMMITTEES 83 COMMITTEES Northern Australia Joint Select Committee 83 Appointment 83 18:14 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 A message has been received from the House of Representatives transmitting for concurrence resolutions relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. Public Works Joint Committee, Treaties Joint Committee 83 Membership 83 Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 83 Membership 83 Northern Australia Joint Select Committee 83 Membership 83 BILLS 84 BILLS Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 84

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Assent 84 COMMITTEES 84 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 84 Reference 84 18:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of 2023: The project known as the Iron Boomerang, with particular reference to: (a) the employment likely to result from the project during construction and once completed; (b) the effect on Australia's gross domestic product and balance of payments from this significant change in Australia's productive capacity; (c) capital, energy and resources required to build and operate the proposed 10 steel plants, 5 at Port Headland, Western Australia and 5 in the Bowen Basin, Queensland; (d) the feasibility of the proposed clamshell design and electric/diesel propulsion to safely transport iron ore and coal across the 3000 kilometre route; (e) the environmental benefit of the reduction in bulk ore exports in regard to marine pollution and energy consumption; (f) any environmental impacts from the proposed alignment; (g) any impacts of the rail line or steel parks on the Aboriginal community; (h) the relevance of the Iron Boomerang project to our national security; and (i) any other related matters. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that Project Iron Boomerang is an exciting and visionary project that can make our country's north and can make our whole country. Project Iron Boomerang's main elements are a 3,300-kilometre transcontinental railroad with heavy duty axle capacity connecting existing rail networks in the iron ore region of the Pilbara to the existing rail networks in Central Queensland, on the way linking with the existing Darwin-Adelaide rail line to improve freight movement nationally. The essence of this project is that iron ore will be transported from west to east, and those carriages will be then backloaded with coal to transport coal to Western Australia—hence the boomerang name. Steel blast furnaces and steel parks at both ends—in the east in the Bowen Basin of Queensland and in the west in the Pilbara in Western Australia—will in turn turn the iron ore and coal into steel slabs for export from Port Hedland in Western Australia and from Abbot Point and the Port of Gladstone and Queensland. Fibre optic, water, power and potentially gas lines can be laid along the rail alignment for additional commercial benefit. Project Iron Boomerang will strengthen Australia's balance of payments. It will lift our gross domestic product, and, with that, lift our whole economy, restoring our national security, restoring opportunity. We have allowed too many industries to be closed and sent overseas. Too many jobs have been exported. It's time to turn that around. Project Iron Boomerang is not unique. The 1,440-kilometre Tarcoola-Darwin railway was completed only recently in five years at a cost of $1.2 billion across similar terrain, so we know we can do it. The total Adelaide-Darwin line is 2,975 kilometres. We can do this. Iron Boomerang is feasible and well within our grasp. At the very least, the project will create a freight and passenger line that will open the Top End and improve services to remote regions. The alignment will be used to lay fibre optic cable and a power line. These services would ordinarily accompany a railway having this line's economic and security implications. Remote communities and often disadvantaged Aboriginal communities will benefit enormously from access to high-speed, reliable internet, reliable power, transport and permanent jobs. Imagine the transformation of inland northern Australia. There is a strong case for adding a water pipeline along the alignment to add potable water to the services that Project Iron Boomerang will offer remote communities. Lake Argyle in Western Australia is part of the Ord River Irrigation Scheme. At 5,600 gigalitres, it is mainland Australia's largest dam. The Ord River irrigation network extends close to the start of Project Iron Boomerang. A connection could be made to bring potable water, which is town, stock and station water, to remote communities. For too many years successive government have offered remote communities nothing except platitudes and paternalism whilst housing and services get worse and worse. Project Iron Boomerang offers a chance to change that future to bring prosperity to Aboriginal communities, Australian communities, northern Australia communities. The private sector, anxious to access cost-effective, reliable transcontinental and intercontinental freight and internet services, will meet much of the cost. Telcos are now showing a lot of interest in the fibre-optic cable. The steel parks at either end are a large part of why Australia should move this project forward. In 2020 the world's largest steel manufacturer, China, produced one billion tonnes of steel—1,066 million, to be precise. By contrast, Australia's two largest manufacturers, Liberty and BlueScope, produced just 12.7 million tonnes between them—one per cent of China's production. And by the way, the Chinese get their iron ore and their coal raw materials from Australia. Despite accounting for less than one per cent of world production, the Australian steel industry employs 100,000 Australians and adds $29 billion to our gross domestic product. Australia should be a leading manufacturer of steel. We hold the world's third largest reserves of metallurgical black coal and the largest reserves of high-quality iron ore. Yet we mostly export the stuff: $145 billion worth of iron ore and $100 billion of coal, creating jobs overseas instead of here in Australia. The growth of underlying world steel demand is expected to remain at two per cent over the medium term, with the new developing region of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan taking up the slack from maturing Chinese, American and European markets. If exports of coal for power are cut in the name of climate change—which One Nation strongly opposes—then substituting the use of coal for power with the use of coal for domestic steel will provide continuity of employment for the coal industry. Even Adam Bandt has at last woken up to the fact that we need coal for making steel, so it's okay to burn coal now—something that should keep the unions and the coalminers happy. Steel is critical to the new economy, being an essential component of wind turbines and electric vehicles, amongst many other uses. Another economic benefit is fly ash, which is a by-product of steel manufacturing when the power source is coal. Fly ash can replace 20 to 30 per cent of the cement in concrete. Project Iron Boomerang will result in the construction of new concrete plants to utilise the steel park's by-products. This will provide more employment and of course produce more concrete to secure the foundations of all those wind turbines that the Greens want to build and the dam walls that One Nation wants to build. There are significant economic and environmental efficiencies from replacing the export of coal and iron ore with the export of steel slabs—much higher value. Australia currently exports 950 million tonnes of iron ore, including 350 million tons of dirt, and 177 million tonnes of metallurgical coal for steel and 213 million tonnes of thermal coal for power generation, freeing the world's poor, who haven't got electricity in some cases. This is shipped, trucked and railed around the world. Then those transports return home empty. Project Iron Boomerang will eliminate that overhead from the price of steel and eliminate all the wasted energy in that supply chain. That gives Australia an enormous competitive advantage in the steel sector. Australian steel slabs will be sent overseas as backloaded cargo for container ships that are currently leaving Australia empty—more advantage to all importers and exporters from our country. It's likely—and this is one of many claims for the committee to test—that these new steel parks will be able to produce quality Australian steel 15 per cent more cheaply than Chinese steel and of far higher quality. It's safe to say that the project, with the support industries that will grow around the steel parks, will produce an economic benefit in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The world steel market is worth $1.3 trillion. There's no reason Australia can't dominate that market, and with this project it will. Around 40,000 new breadwinner jobs will be created directly and, indirectly, double that—or possibly much more. Project Iron Boomerang was granted the status of project of state significance in Queensland in 2006, yet this appears to have lapsed, partly through the need to coordinate three states on the project. This is where the federal government is much better suited to advance the project. One Nation are proposing a committee referral with a view to recommending for or against the listing of Project Iron Boomerang as an Infrastructure Australia high priority project. The next step will be a full business case, and that has a price tag of $240 million. Government must fund this before private equity can have the confidence to put billions of their own money into it. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the difficulty this project has had in getting capital to complete a detailed business case. It's no surprise private industry are in effect saying to the government, 'We don't trust you.' Once the federal government provides surety, it's likely that private equity will fund the major project elements. The railroad itself is costed at $20 billion, the steel parks at around $40 billion and the supporting infrastructure at another $10 billion. Increased government revenue of $25 billion annually is likely for each $100 billion of additional domestic economic activity. One Nation does have a concern that the funding model will result in a high degree of foreign ownership. This is something the committee can discuss. While we recognise that steel customers may want to secure steel supply through joint ventures, One Nation wants Australian control through ownership. The work done so far on the business case proves the need to get serious about Project Iron Boomerang. I ask you for your support for this motion. 18:26 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I just want to take a couple of minutes to support and thank Senator Roberts for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't heard of Project Iron Boomerang, but I sat down and got a briefing from Senator Roberts. It comes back to when I was a kid growing up. I remember in the great state of New South Wales we used to do all of this sort of stuff. We actually used to make our own steel. We used to have proud steel cities, where there were communities, there were bonds and there were families, before all this 'fly-in, fly-out' nonsense took over. It was before the farm was sold—if I can use the terminology of a farm. It breaks my heart to think, as I'm watching my grandchildren grow up, how disgusted they should be with the politicians before us who thought it was a good idea to contract out work we used to do and we did well. I hear conversations like those I've picked up in Senate inquiries on the Inland Rail, where there are concerns about cheaper steel coming from China, nowhere near the Australian standard. Regardless of who's in government, I always have a fear: Who are the ones who are supposed to be out there monitoring this stuff? Are they doing their job properly? That's not a blue-versus-red conversation or blue-versus-red argument. I nearly said blue-versus-blue, but you know what I mean. So I want to support this. I know the Labor Party and Prime Minister Albanese—the Albanese government—support you, Senator Roberts, for bringing this to us. I think it's a magnificent thing, and I also think this is what we should be doing. These are the big-ticket items that, when I first came into the Senate, lo and behold, I thought we would be discussing on a daily basis. How tricked I got! But, anyway, at least let's get back to the big stuff about building a better nation, as I said in my first speech, and leaving it better than how we found it. I want to share a quick comment with the Senate. I was in China. I met with Madam Fu Ying. Some may think, 'Who's Madam Fu Ying?' Madam Fu Ying is very highly regarded in the CCP. She was China's Ambassador to Australia during the Howard regime. I was joined by Senators Gallagher and Dastyari when Madam Fu Ying made it very clear to us how wonderful it is: 'Thank you, Australia, for sending us your coal. Thank you, Australia, for sending us your iron ore, because we turn it into steel, and we make a heck of a lot more money selling it back to you, and we appreciate that.' I want to support this, and we will support this, Senator Roberts. I understand the opposition are, hopefully, getting behind this too, because this is the stuff we need to do. The beauty of speaking after Senator Roberts is you've heard the whole guts and crux of the matter. I can't pick an argument there. There's not a downside that I've seen. The beauty of it is that I know my committee—the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee—has been predicated for all of the years I've been here to put aside all the political bulldust, to actually dig deep, go wide, go varied and listen to everyone who has got a thought and to actually try and deliver in the best interests of our nation. Senator Roberts, I tip my hat to you. I look forward to joining you on the tour. Let's try and put these two great industries together: iron ore in my state of WA and coal in your state of Queensland. It just makes too much sense. I'm starting to get a headache because it's sounding too easy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 86 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022 86 Disallowance 86 18:30 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm pleased to rise to speak on this disallowance motion in relation to the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. In doing so, I note that this is the first step in the Labor government's project to abolish the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which as at today is the only handbrake on the lawless activity of the construction division of the CFMMEU. I've made the point in relation to this discussion previously that when Minister Burke first announced the substantial amendment gutting the powers of the ABCC under the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022 he did not even dare to mention the CFMMEU in his media announcement. He couldn't even bring himself to mention the CFMMEU in relation to his announcement of the substantial amendment, the gutting of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. When you actually look at the regulation, the delegated legislation, itself and you look at the proposed amendments and then go through and look at the explanatory statement issued by the authority, you see that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations cannot bring himself to even refer to the CFMMEU construction division, which is the whole reason we have this apparatus called the Australian Building and Construction Commission: because of the lawless activity that is occurring on construction sites all over Australia. When you go through the explanatory statement, the guide to all the provisions, there is no mention of the CFMMEU at all. There is not a single mention of the CFMMEU. There is not a single mention of the millions of dollars of fines which have been levied on the CFMMEU or their disgraceful conduct on construction sites all over Australia. As I've said previously in this house and will say all the way up to the next federal election, the fact of the matter is that the Labor Party is institutionally incapable of dealing with the lawless nature of the activities of the CFMMEU. I saw this just recently in my home state of Queensland. I quote from an article appearing in the Courier Mail on 24 August 2022 in relation to an incident which occurred after this Senate last met, entitled 'Hundreds of CFMEU protesters storm Transport and Main Roads building in Brisbane CBD', by reporter Madura McCormack: Public servants have been put at risk, a government building forced to lock down and events cancelled after hundreds of militant construction union members stormed a CBD building in a protest gone awry. I'm not sure it was a protest gone awry, because if one looks at the conduct of the construction division of the CFMMEU, this is what they do. This is exactly their modus operandi. I again quote: The Department of Transport and Main Roads confirmed 'more than' 200 CFMEU members held a protest at the government's Mary Street offices on Tuesday about 9am before forcibly entering the building. This included knocking down a security guard—who was not seriously injured— lucky for the security guard— and exposing staff members to 'upsetting and unacceptable' behaviour. What about the workplace rights of the security guard, who was just doing his job—manning his post, going about his day—when he was knocked down by protesters from the CFMMEU? What about his workplace rights? What about his right to a safe workplace when he goes about his business, discharging his duties faithfully? Transport Minister Mark Bailey, who was not in the building at the time— unlike the poor old security guard— confirmed some staff were trapped in a server room to get away from protesters. So this was hardly a peaceful protest if there were staff—Queensland public servants; no doubt many of them members of the Together union—and I'll have something else to say about that later—actually trapped in a room, isolated, because of the violent thuggery of the CFMEU. I again quote: Queensland Police confirmed they were called to protest action around 9.30am on Tuesday, though their estimates put the crowd at around 100 to 150. The annual Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program industry briefing was due to be held in the Mary St building that morning, with TMR director general Neil Scales scheduled to speak. But a TMR spokesperson confirmed police presence did not stop CFMEU members from helping others forcibly enter the building, with the mob then entering the conference room set to be used for the event. So it didn't matter the police were there, it didn't matter that this protest was so violent the Queensland public servants, no doubt members of a trade union themselves, had to call the police. That didn't matter. The construction division—I'm not talking about the mining division, I'm talking about the construction division—of the CFMEU is lawless, absolutely lawless. It continues—and this is where it gets really interesting. There are senators sitting in this chamber, who sit on the other side of the chamber, whose ethics and morals I greatly admire. No doubt they would agree, as I do, with the principle of civil disobedience, peaceful protest and that sometimes you must take measures to make your voice heard. But in this case they've stormed into a conference—a conference that three members of the CFMEU had actually been invited to attend, to participate in the conference. And yet what do they do? One hundred to 150 or 200 violent members disturb the conference. As a consequence the conference had to be called off. Subsequent conferences also had to be called off because of the lawless nature of the construction division of the CFMEU's activities. Mr Bailey— who is my local state member— defended workers ability to protest but said "you must do it respectfully, and you must do it peacefully and that's not what we saw yesterday". "And, you know, I'm afraid that's, you know, I can't defend that at all. And I wouldn't defend that— No, nor would I, Mr Bailey MP. I wouldn't defend it either. Indeed the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, described the incident as follows: "That footage is incredibly disturbing and I would have hated being a person there with that happening … they owe an apology to those workers— an apology to those workers— who were subjected to that and who felt unsafe." Palaszczuk said she understood police were looking into the matter. And how does the CFMEU respond? Is there contrition on the part of the CFMEU construction division? Do they say: 'Well maybe we got a bit out of hand. Maybe our emotions got away from us. We genuinely apologise. We show remorse.' You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict how the CFMEU construction division actually responded to that call for an apology. Why do I say that? Because you only have to read the many, many High Court cases, Supreme Court cases, Federal Court cases where judges of this country have repeatedly said the CFMEU fails to show remorse. The construction division of the CFMEU repeatedly will not show contrition, will not show remorse. This is what the CFMEU said, this is what the assistant secretary said—I'm not going to name him, because I believe this is a sick, sick culture in this union. He said: The issue "seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup" … What happened? 'Oh, it was a storm in a teacup'. He continued: A bunch of fluoro shirts attended the meeting and unfortunately some people panicked about that. Workers simply just wanted to go and listen about industry projects that were coming up. We attended a meeting, the meeting got cancelled and we left. That's from a senior official of the CFMMEU construction division. There was no contrition, no remorse and nothing about the security guard they knocked over as they ran into peaceful meeting which they had attended and been participating in. There was nothing about the public servants who, no doubt, are members of the Together union in my home state of Queensland who were trapped in a server room, unable to escape—not a word. No contrition, no remorse, what's the problem? Objective achieved. Business as usual for the CFMMEU construction division. Mark Bailey called on Ravbar to make a public apology. Is that the same Ravbar who sits on the ALP national executive? Maybe some of those here could ask him to make a public apology. Bailey said: I have backed in our workers from day one as their minister, I take that responsibility seriously, and they were mistreated by his union members. That's what a Labor minister is saying about the CFMMEU in my home state of Queensland. Is anyone surprised? Where will this lawlessness end? How will the abolition of the ABCC promote lawful, safe working places? I've spoken previously in this place about the fact that the Together union, which may well be the union that represents the security guard who was knocked down, and no doubt is also the union representing some of the public servants who essentially were deprived of their liberty and trapped whilst this violent protest was going on, had to take protected industrial action on behalf of workplace health and safety inspectors because it was not safe for the workplace health and safety inspectors to go onto construction sites in Queensland. That is how bad the situation is. Yet the minister is in the process of gutting the ABCC, taking away all of the ABCC's powers. In the explanatory statement, in the regulation, in all the documents relating to this matter, there is not a single mention of the CFMMEU and its unlawful behaviour. It is the union whose name we will not utter, and the Labor Party is proving itself of being institutionally incapable of dealing with the unlawful behaviour of the CFMMEU. Our public servants deserve better. Our workplace health and safety inspectors deserve better. Everyone working on our construction workplaces deserves better than to have to deal with this unlawful behaviour. There was another case where the reasons were brought down after we last met or in our last week or thereabouts. This was the case dealing with the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the CFMMEU in relation to Pacific Highway Upgrade Case (No. 4). We know that in relation to every single major infrastructure project in this country involving the CFMMEU there are cases like this—again and again. Judge Humphreys said, at paragraph 52: It is perhaps appropriate to deal with the CFMMEU first. This is a Union which has a long and troubled history of breaches of the relevant workplace legislation. It is a Union that appears to have a preferred mode of business that accepts prosecution for breaches of the relevant legislation as an occupational hazard, and presumably the imposition of pecuniary penalties in the same casual manner. The judge then referred to the Pattinson case in the High Court and to the Broadway on Ann case, both of which I've previously referred to in this place. He said, at paragraph 56: Given the findings of the High Court in Pattinson the Court is satisfied that it is entitled to look at imposing a pecuniary penalty at the very high end of the available range of penalties in order to again emphasise the need for specific deterrence. It goes on: The Court is also taken account that no remorse or contrition has been evidenced by the CFMMEU— Just as there was no remorse or contrition about the supposed storm in a teacup when the security guard just doing his business, going about his day, was bowled over by members of the CFMMEU. his is their modus operandi, their way of doing business. The penalty in this case: another $100,000—just the cost of doing business. Another $100,000—who cares? When's our next protest going to be? When are we going to picket our next construction work site? This Senate has an obligation to consider the lawless activity of the CFMMEU. 18:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I want to speak on the same disallowance matter, but first I want to say that there's nothing that sets the Liberal and National parties into fits of hysteria more than the mere mention of the CFMMEU. I'm not sure whether anyone in the opposition has ever actually met a CFMMEU member or official. They seem to think construction workers and unionists are three-headed fire-breathing monsters. Being a lifelong trade unionist myself, I'm going to let the opposition in on a little secret about trade unions. Union leaders are elected by union members. Union members are everyday rank-and-file workers—members of the community fighting for better conditions and fair rates of pay for their work mates and their families. So, when the coalition gets up and talks about 'union thugs', they're actually talking about construction workers and those people fighting for decent rates—the people who built this building, built their offices and built their homes. I know that some of those opposite don't like to mingle with the hoi polloi, but if they ever find their way out of the boardroom or the Qantas lounge or if they meet a construction worker, they might realise that they aren't that scary. When this disallowance motion was first introduced, in the last sitting week in July, I spared myself from sitting through some of the absolute nonsense that was being spouted in this chamber. Instead, I went over to the parliamentary theatre and watched the premiere screening of a documentary titled Lethal Bias: The War to Criminalise Australia's Construction Workers. It was commissioned by the construction union and produced by the celebrated former ABC journalist Matt Peacock. Anyone contributing to the debate should watch it. It is packed with something that is often lacking from the debate about the ABCC and the CFMMEU: facts. For starters, the notion that the ABCC has anything to do with making work sites safe is utter nonsense. Construction is up there with road transport as one of the deadliest industries in Australia. There is an organisation that goes on to work sites to make sure things are safe, and that organisation is the CFMMEU. There is another organisation that exists solely to harass and impede the union from doing that work. That organisation is the ABCC. Let hal Bias tells the story of Christopher Cassaniti. Christopher was an 18-year-old apprentice who died at a Macquarie Park work site in 2019 when 17 metres of scaffolding collapsed on him. The scaffolding was massively overloaded and was not tied together appropriately. It was obvious to anyone who knew anything about scaffolding that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Christopher was trapped under tonnes and tonnes of concrete and steel. He was stuck under there, screaming for help, for 20 minutes, while his work mates, many of them in the CFMMEU, frantically tried to pull him from the rubble. Those are the real heroes. The ABCC never once bothered to look into the safety on that site—or on any other site, for that matter. What is the ABCC doing instead? While Christopher and others are dying on construction sites every week, they are spending millions on running court cases about stickers and flags. They are losing cases in the High Court seeking to block a woman's bathroom from being installed on a work site. The ABCC's core business is to stop the CFMMEU from making work sites safe. The ABCC's core business is to protect shonky property developers and contractors who want to cut corners and use loopholes to squeeze out an extra buck. When you cut corners on safety, construction workers die. This is the system the ABCC exists to protect. This is the system that the opposition is trying to save. Not only does the ABCC run a protection racket for deadly worksites; they also run a protection racket for wage theft and sham contracting. In six years, the ABCC has recovered the grand sum of $15,000 for sham contracting. In six years, the ABCC has not prosecuted a single employer for sham contracting. In six years, the ABCC has recovered $4 million in wage theft. In that same period, the CFMMEU has recovered over $100 million for workers, despite the best efforts of the ABCC to stop them from going about their work. The ABCC has nothing to do with safety, pay or conditions. That's obvious. So why are those opposite wasting time with this disallowance motion? It is because this is really all about the right wing's ongoing scare campaign about unions. Does anyone remember the coalition's royal commission into the unions, when the coalition hired a sexual predator named Dyson Heydon to run a show trial more befitting a Third World dictatorship? For those opposite who may have forgotten, the dog and pony show did not lead to a single conviction. In fact, all it led to was the creation of the ABCC to continue on the anti-union witch-hunt. The first ABCC commissioner, Nigel Hadgkiss, was forced to resign for breaching—get ready for it—the Fair Work Act. How about that? The Liberals went two for two: Dyson and Nigel. I'll congratulate the current ABCC commissioner for being the first to avoid committing a crime or breaching the Fair Work Act—as least as far as I am aware—although he does lose points for collaborating with the Master Builders Association during their campaign to re-elect the Morrison government. I would love to see Mr McBurney's notes from the 14 separate meetings the ABCC had with the MBA during the campaign. Speaking of the Master Builders Association, perhaps the greatest farce of all in the debate has been notion that the ABCC has improved productivity in the construction industry. The last time we saw productivity growth in construction was after the previous Labor government abolished the earlier iteration of the ABCC. Since it was reinstated, productivity has actually declined in the sector. What do the Liberals and Master Builders rely on to support this absurd argument? A survey commissioned by the Master Builders Association, which, as it turns out, has just 49 hand-picked respondents—a survey that has been described by respected University of Sydney economist Dr Philip Toner as 'empirically empty and useless'. I couldn't sum up the ABCC nor the disallowance motion better if I tried. 18:53 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to talk about this disallowance motion. Earlier today in this chamber I noted that Labor, like leopards, do not change their spots—and neither does the CFMMEU. In 2016 when I first spoke in this chamber on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill, I quoted my old boss in the army, General David Morrison, who said what has now become a very well-known statement: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept,' except, in this case, the standard the Labor Party walk past is the CFMMEU. They have their hand out for the 30 pieces of silver every time they walk past every illegal act and every infraction from the CFMMEU. Unlike what Senator Sheldon just said, this is not about the workers; this is about the criminal actions of those trade union officials. It is about the criminal action of the officials. If only it were just about worker safety—if only they were just focused on that—our country would be a far better place. And the cost of construction would be a hell of a lot less for all Australians if that were actually the case. What we saw in 2016 and what many of us who are now on this side of the chamber talked about is exactly what they are doing today. It is a complete disgrace that Labor, with the support of some crossbenchers who have been talking about nothing but integrity over the course of this campaign, are actually now considering getting rid of one of the most important integrity commissions in this country, or, if not getting rid of it completely, getting rid of it pretty much in name only. The Gillard government lost the confidence of the entire building and construction sector in 2012 when it caved into union pressure to dismantle the ABCC, and nothing has changed. Again, another Labor Prime Minister is promising to abolish the ABCC or reduce it down to almost nothing. Again, this is further proof that they will always do anything they can to appease their paymasters at the CFMMEU, who they are clearly completely beholden to. Abolishing the ABCC is absolutely a matter of integrity, because while it's not called an integrity commission it is clearly an integrity body. It is a body to promote the integrity, safety and lawfulness in an industry that has faced long-standing problems with industrial action. It should never ever be a question in this chamber, and yet here we are six years later discussing the same matter again. The facts about the CFMMEU are shocking. Despite Senator Sheldon just saying in this chamber, 'It is actually all about the workers. Don't look at what the union officials are doing here. Don't look at their corruption. Don't look at their criminal actions for which they have been prosecuted for and found guilty of.' Let's have a look at some of the actions that those opposite—for their 30 pieces of silver—are trying very hard not to have anybody in this place or in this nation focus on. First of all, unlawful industrial action. More than 1,400 breaches resulting from 20 cases have led to $3.6 million in fines. Coercion breaches—coercion in the workplace in this day and age!. More than 470 breaches resulting from more than 37 cases, leading to nearly $6 million in fines. Right of entry breaches: more than 300 breaches resulting from 40 cases leading to $4.2 million in fines. Freedom of association breaches: more than 120 breaches resulting from 15 cases leading to nearly $1 million in fines. Unlawful picketing breaches: more than 20 breaches resulting from four cases leading to over $1 million in fines. If that's not enough—unlawful industrial action, coercion, right of entry breaches, freedom of association breaches, unlawful picketing breaches—there are also misrepresentation breaches, almost 30 breaches resulting from six cases and nearly $400,000 in fines. Let's all ask ourselves, in this place and I hope across our nation, why on earth is Labor so desperate to abolish this integrity commission? What crimes and why are they seeking to cover up these crimes? The CEO of Master Builders Australia, Denita Wawn, said that the Labor government's decision to dismantle the ABCC: …is an abandonment of two decades of bipartisan recognition that the construction sector requires industry-specific regulation and oversight. I hope nobody on the crossbench will actually support this, but let's have a look at some of the other breaches and what they actually look like. The CFMMEU has been penalised for more breaches of the Fair Work Act than any other union. A CFMMEU office official, jailed for assault, once told a female inspector she was a FS and asked her if she bought her knees pads as, 'You are going to be sucking off these—something—dogs all day'. This is the behaviour. This is the language that still happens today that those opposite are excusing. The Courier Mail revealed that a CFMMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site and said, 'Go on, off you go, you FDC. Go get your police.' He allegedly then called her something I won't even abbreviate here in this chamber. It was disgusting and disgraceful and it has no place in any workplace in this nation today. Some of the sexist incidents recorded in the files of the union watchdog included a CFMMEU official threatening to gang rape a woman after she had inspected a site. He threatened to gang rape a female inspector on site. How can anybody on that side of the chamber possibly excuse and take money from the officials from this union? You should all be hanging your heads in shame. One of the union officials also spat at a female workplace inspector during one visit. Again I will not say the language that was used. In another visit, the same female inspector was called an effing S and a dog something by union officials while she was in there lawfully doing her job on behalf of Australians. CFMMEU delegates were accused of harassing the daughter of a builder when they picketed a worksite. The picketers were accused of harassing the daughter of the builder when she entered the site in her car by commenting on her breasts and her bottom and making—again I won't say the sounds that they made, but it was an utter disgrace. They allegedly called her daddy's girl and a blonde bimbo and said: 'Here comes the freeloader living off your dad. That car belongs to us because your daddy has paid for it.' Again that is by the very officials that are supposed to be setting the standard and looking after workers in the workplace. A CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. The last call was logged at 11.23 pm. An anonymous flyer was then circulated, referring to the woman as a dog who wanted to be a pole dancer. The flyer gave the name of the woman's husband, her home address and her phone number. I cannot possibly think of worse intimidation, not just for a female inspector but for anyone—ringing them late at night, threatening and intimidating, letting them know they know where you live, they know who your husband is, they know who your children are. Again that is the behaviour that those opposite are supporting. To that same inspector, a number of threatening calls were made. Again I won't say what was said, but again there was a threat of gang rape: 'Me and my mates are going to come and eff you.' If that's not enough, there are plenty more examples. CFMMEU officials at a site in Sydney intimidated a female police officer—a police officer, a female officer—in the course of doing her job as a police officer, representing us all and keeping law and order. The policewoman described how the official made sure she was feeling 'intimidated or scared'. The court has also previously ruled that a female operations manager was subjected to intimidation by the picketers' actions, which Justice Rares described as 'calculated to instil fear into persons who are within or wish to enter those premises'. A former Fair Work Building Commission employee was subject to intimidation by John Setka—hardly a surprise, I think, to anybody in this building. He is someone who is still protected by those opposite. Mr Setka and Mr Reardon made a number of sexually derogatory remarks. The woman found three missed phone calls from Mr Reardon and one missed phone call Mr Setka, who left a highly sexually explicit derogatory message on her telephone. We would not ever accept that, and we've made clear we do not accept that in this place. It is illegal in every other workplace, yet those opposite and some on the crossbench want to still look the other way. As David Morrison said, they're turning their eye and putting their hand out and taking the 30 pieces of silver from the union. COVID-19 has significantly impacted the construction industry and caused a reduction of over 600,000 jobs. As we recover from the pandemic, the demand for the industry is rapidly growing. Without this integrity commission, output in the industry could fall by at least $35 billion, as higher construction costs make fewer projects possible and capital is relocated to other activities. Any member of this chamber who votes to support the CFMMEU and votes to abolish the ABCC, or to at least get rid of most of its powers, should hang their head in shame. Anyone who does support that, please never ever come into this chamber or out of this chamber and talk about integrity. If you get rid of one of the most important integrity commissions in our nation that has been shown time and time again, including to now, to be so important, if you vote to abolish it or to neuter it, you have lost your right to ever, with any credibility, talk about integrity. 19:06 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to support the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. I do this because for a couple of decades I lived with a partner—father of my children—who worked in a job that meant he became a member of the CFMMEU then a delegate and an official. He is a good man, amongst many good men. He never tolerated violence. He is a brave person who worked in a tough industry. I remember nervously watching him go to work as a union official the day after a brick had come through the back window of our car overnight. The building industry is a tough industry. That does not mean we should tolerate violence or misogyny. But that does not mean that we should make it impossible for delegates, officials and members in that union to do their jobs and to go to work safely, protected by their union. Too many South Australian kids and adults have died on our building sites in my state. We need courageous people who are willing to be members and officials of a union that stands up to keep the industry safe and we need to enable them to do their jobs. This interim building code regulation is a first step to ensuring construction workers have the same rights as other workers and other unionists. Workers should be treated fairly, as should unionists. The interim code is necessary to prevent unnecessary restrictions that have been imposed on the construction industry. The previous coalition government's building code banned clauses that ensured some were not paid the same pay despite doing the same job. It prevented full-time apprenticeship ratios from being exercised. The right ratio of apprentices to more experienced workers keeps young people—apprentices—in the building industry safe. It also prevented the protection against sham contracting, which meant that workers were not protected with safe conditions on their work sites. The previous coalition government's building code went so far as to ban the flying of union flags and logos on notice boards, stickers on workers' hats. There are plenty of workers in workplaces across Australia who have stickers that are symbolic of their membership of a union. Workers will now be able to bargain in the same way as other workers under the Fair Work Act, and the antiworker elements of the building code, a highly politicised act, will finally be removed. Workers should be treated equally regardless of the industry they work in. Requirements for health and safety for workers are still protected under legislation, and the federal safety commission will be retained. It is vital to continue, in particular, protection of health and safe try for workers in this industry. The ABCC was a political and ideological attack on workers and on unions. Instead of protecting worker safety, it gave the previous coalition more power to persecute the very people trying to look out for the safety and fair treatment of people at work, so many of them young people. Instead of acting to address the real issues in the workforce—like ending insecure work, closing the gender pay gap and lifting the minimum wage—the previous government spent their energy trying to break a union. They tried to break its solidarity and made very specific attacks on building workers. The ABCC undermined important protections for workers in their bargaining agreements, like being entitled to the same pay for doing the same job. The Greens have a long-held policy to abolish the ABCC and prioritise workers' safety and community safety. The government's job should be to protect the rights of unions and their workers, not to undermine them. For decades successive governments have looked after large corporations, in many cases, and workers have needed the protection of unions to stand up. So we welcome this first step towards getting rid of what has been a very ideological and political body, without real practical effect, that worked hard to demonise particular workers and their unions, and we look forward to the full abolition of the ABCC. It's time our parliament focused on outlawing insecure work, increasing wages, protecting the health and safety of all workers, and making sure that all workers have fair access to the same entitlements and conditions. Denigrating the whole union, and the difficult circumstances that so many workers and delegates and officials do their work under, is a mistake and we should proceed to support this code. 19:11 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I'm glad Senator Sheldon came back into the chamber to hear me speak, because he put out a challenge to those on this side who actually knew a worker. Let me tell you about my grandfather. He was an ambulanceman on the docks who suffered under the Painters and Dockers Union. He was harassed the whole time, although he was there to protect their lives and to save their lives when there was an accident. Do you want to know why I don't like unions? It's because, like the Painters and Dockers Union, they are full of thugs. My other grandfather was a carpenter who worked on building sites. Again, he was harassed by the BLF—the Builders Labourers Federation—and he was driven off building sites. Do you want to talk about people who know what it's like to be harassed by a union? My two grandfathers were, that's who. Look at both of those unions, now both deregistered. So I will not be lectured to by those on that side about the thuggery of unions and what they will do and the lengths that they will go to in order to harass those who stand up against them or won't join them. I just won't hear it. Right now we are experiencing some of the highest costs of living, as inflation goes through the roof. The current headline annual inflation is 6.1 per cent, which is the highest rate of inflation in almost 32 years. It is the highest rate of inflation since Labor's 'recession we had to have'. I think we're in for another one. The price of fuel has risen by 32 per cent in just a year, with prices rising for the eighth consecutive quarter, by 4.2 per cent in the June quarter. The coalition's cuts to fuel excise are coming to an end on 29 September, meaning that under this government fuel prices are going to rise even further. Non-discretionary goods and services rose by 1.8 per cent in the quarter, to be 7.6 per cent higher through the year. Australians are having to make cost-saving measures, which for many Australians is going to feel like going back to the deprivations they felt under lockdown—particularly in my home state of Victoria, where the Labor state government locked people down for the longest time in the world. People are going to have to make sacrifices in the name of being able to pay their bills. Australians need help from government, with cost-of-living pressures higher now than ever. However, Labor seems to have decided that now they are in government they no longer have to campaign and win votes, and easing cost-of-living pressures was just a slogan during their election campaign, and helping Australians is no longer their priority. In the first 100 days of this Labor government we saw nothing happen. All we've seen is junkets, photo-ops and a bit of a talkfest here and there. No plan has been made to help Australians with the cost-of-living pressures that Labor promised to fix. What are the Labor Party doing about it now? Nothing. Their priority seems to be very clearly to help their union paymasters by reducing the ABCC's powers to the bare legal minimum. One must ask, Senator Sheldon—through you, Chair—why is stripping the ABCC of its powers such a priority for this Labor government? Why is dismantling the ABCC so important to the Labor Party that it was one of the first two announcements they made? Why is it, with all the pressures facing Australians every day, they decided this is more significant to them than looking after Australians? Well, it's pretty obvious. I'll tell you why: it's to keep their union donations rolling in. The CFMMEU over the past 20 years have provided the Labor Party with more than $16 million in donations. This is the very union where officials have previously been caught allegedly cursing at, spitting at and threatening to gang-rape and even kill women, and my good friend Senator Reynolds outlined more atrocities that this union has done. We heard the leader of the CFMMEU, John Setka, had been found guilty of domestic violence on multiple occasions, including an incident where he bashed his partner's head against the table repeatedly and another where he pushed her down a staircase. Is he one of the hoi polloi you don't me to talk to? I don't want to talk to him. I don't want him running any organisation. The Prime Minister is a fan of saying, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'—General Morrison's quote, as we heard before, which the Prime Minister seems to have grabbed hold of. Yet by abolishing the ABCC, what is the standard that the Prime Minister is saying he is going to accept—that same behaviour of John Setka, the same behaviours we heard outlined by Senator Reynolds? This sort of union thuggery is unacceptable, and the Prime Minister should not accept it. Let us not forget that in analysis undertaken by EY it was outlined that abolishing the ABCC would create ongoing challenges which are likely to be more economically disruptive in this currently harsh business environment. Specifically, labour costs could increase by around 8.8 per cent, and productivity, something we heard this government talk so much about in its talkfest last week, could decline by 9.3 per cent. Not only that, but the output of the construction industry could fall by around $35.4 billion by 2030 and overall economic activity could decline by $47.5 billion by 2030. This would come at a potential cost to taxpayers in the order of $9.5 billion by 2029 and an estimated reduction in investment of $45.6 billion by 2030. So we see the Labor Party are willing to back thugs and throw the construction industry into chaos, all so they can continue to take their donations, and this will affect all Australians—outside the construction industry. The last time the Labor Party abolished the ABCC the cost of building infrastructure, so important to our recovery, rose an astounding 30 per cent. That's a 30 per cent increase in cost to build hospitals, schools, roads, railways and other critical infrastructure. This is at a time when Victorian government infrastructure project costs are blowing out wildly, and those on that side are going to push the costs even higher. The Labor Party talk about transparency, but when it comes to transparency about unions they won't have a bar of it. As the Australian Industry Group said, the decision to scrap parts of the code and disempower the commission is a backwards step in the fight against bullying and intimidation that would result in health and safety risks and would slow the delivery of infrastructure projects such as roads, hospitals and schools. This means that Australian tax dollars will be squandered just so the Labor Party's paymasters will be kept happy. Former Boral CEO, Mike Kane, has said that competition will be reduced as unions pick their preferred contractors and shut out others. That's not this Australia. That's not how we work. That's not how to run an economy. The ABCC does critical work supporting subcontractors with over $1.6 million paid to them, following ABCC intervention in the 2020-21 period. This is money going back into the pockets of everyday Australians. It is becoming clearer and clearer by the day that this government is good at talking the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to integrity. The Prime Minister said he would be a prime minister for all Australians, but it is clear from his short time in office that he's concerned about one thing and one thing only: protecting the protection rackets that he calls unions. We just saw, in this last week, the Jobs and Skills Summit. Despite unions representing less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, they had 33 seats at the table. Meanwhile, small business—the engine room of our economy—which represents 41 per cent of our workforce had only one seat. It is really a despicable representation of where the Labor government's priorities lie. Just today, we've seen the ABCC release a statement stating that it has started a Federal Circuit and Family Court action against the CFMMEU, the CEPU and two officials, following alleged right of entry breaches at the 264-apartment residential tower project at 443 Queen Street, Brisbane. The ABCC is alleging in its statement of claim filed in the court that the CFMMEU official Matthew Vonhoff and CEPU official Wendel Moloney contravened section 500 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The ABCC statement of claim further says Mr Moloney behaved in an abusive and intimidatory manner towards a senior site manager when he responded to a query about what was going on, saying words to the effect of: 'If you speak to anyone, it will be the last time you work in the EBA industry.' Is this really what you want to put your name to, guys? Is this really how you see yourselves? Is it the side that you want to support? It's beyond me that you can do this. These are the people that the Albanese government is protecting by dismantling the ABCC. If the Prime Minister can actually say the words, 'The standard you walk past is the standard that you accept,' then he's got to hang his head in shame and explain why he backs those people over everyday Australians. However, the Labor party are not just walking past this disruptive, reprehensible behaviour; they are providing an avenue for it to continue and turning their back, whistling a loud tune and telling Australians to look the other way. 19:23 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It is no secret that I'm not a fan of the CFMEU. Certainly, I'm talking about the conduct of the top echelon of it. As a matter of fact, if I had a dollar for every hour I have spent on those five letters—C-F-M-E-U—whilst I've been up here the last eight years, I can tell you I would be retired, sitting in the Bahamas drinking cocktails because I would be so rich. There are some really bad apples in that union, and everybody in here—Labor included—you know it. You absolutely know it. You should be ashamed of yourselves. When we've got the union barging into worksites and bullying workers to sign on, we've got a problem. They are using standover tactics. They are standover men. The Labor Party knows it. We've been able to control it a little bit and put a choker chain on them for the last five or six years, and it has been a pleasant experience. But I'll tell you what, it's open slather after today. They'll be like an army marching on—with really bad leadership, because that hasn't changed. Culture doesn't change unless you change the leadership. The CFMMEU squeeze employers who don't play by their rules. They force businesses to shut down. They physically and verbally threaten workers on sites. The CFMMEU officials were calling female construction workers 'bimbos', 'daddy's girls'—we've heard the worst of the worst, and I won't go over it. They told workers at Woolies that the union will make their lives hard. Federal Court judges have told the union that the time for their rule-breaking had well and truly passed, but here we go again, back around in the same circle. But you know what? The union don't see it that way because they keep on doing what they're doing. It's only going to get worse. We're going back to the good old days—here we go again. This is what we're dealing with in the construction industry at the moment, and it's the last thing that we need. We need tradies and their bosses to work well together to have safe worksites. We've got to be building the apartments and the houses we need to get Australians into affordable housing. Do you know what tradies deserve? They deserve to go to work without being called homophobic slurs. They deserve to go to work without being harassed. They deserve a safe workplace. What do you know? The CFMMEU and the unions are supposed to supply that, and they're part of the problem. We have work to do in the construction industry. We should not be comfortable with what's going on. We should be doing better for the tradies and people they work for. I want to be very clear here. All of this doesn't mean that I think the ABCC is great. It doesn't mean I wouldn't vote to replace the ABCC with something else, or wind it back where it needs to be wound back—'where it needs to be wound back' are the ultimate words here. I do not like the leadership of the CFMMEU. I do not like their conduct. It leaves a lot to be questioned, right across society. But that doesn't mean I think the ABCC is a good body. The thing that bothers me so much about what's going on in here tonight is the way Labor have gone about this—it is disgraceful. This whole 'transparency, new government' hoo-ha didn't take long—she's all off the table. The government have purposely gone behind our backs to gut the regulator, a regulator their union donors don't like. How about that? Here come those donations again. Listen—it feels like the cavalry is coming into the Senate! That's what those donations feel like. It's amazing what years of political cash can do, what influence it buys you. It sure as hell does not buy you safety on a construction site—not when the bullies are on the loose. You've found a way to kill the regulator without having to win majority support from the Senate. You should never have done that—it's not right, and you know that. It is shameful. If you wanted to cut the legs out from under the ABCC, you should have put that to us fairly. If there's a problem with the ABCC we should have fought it out on the floor. But no, you didn't want to do that. You should have been able to defend yourselves, be brave, stand up and show some spine. Tell us why you believe the ABCC should be here. Even now, I see you're not full of speakers over there. You're not exactly out there guarding them with everything you've got. How about that? I wouldn't expect anything less from you people over there at the moment. To sneak around and find ways to get the CFMMEU what they want without even putting it to the Senate—that's where we're at already. We're in only the first week of September and that's where we're at with the Labor Party—or is it called the CFMMEU Party? To do it without even getting majority support is just absolute filth. That's dirty political tactics. The worst part is that you're doing it for yourselves, for your election campaigns and for your future donations. You're a piggy bank for the CFMMEU. That is what you are. I honestly thought Labor would have been better than this, but here we go! Here's the true red coming out in its full colours! You know what, I'm not just disappointed; I'm mad and I'm disappointed. I'm both of those things. I'm surprised at you, Minister Burke. It blows me away. I'm even more surprised at you, Minister Dreyfus. You surprised me more than anyone. You've let the CFMMEU walk all over the top of you. In opposition, here you were, telling us how much you cared about accountability and telling us all about proper process and about putting things through parliament the way they should be. Now you're in government, you do this. You might as well be on monkey bars because the backflips are starting already. Here we go! Three months in and we're on. It's full go in the playground. Go those monkey bars! You find a way to strip funding and power from a regulator you don't like—a regulator your donors do not like—and you do it without even putting it to us here in the Senate. How is that good for trust? How does that show the Australian people that you take them seriously? The Senate deserves better than this. The Australian people deserve better than this. I called it out when it was the coalition doing it, and I'll call you out too, for the next 2½ years—and I won't stop. I've had a gutful of what political donations are doing to this country and its people, because they buy people in parliament. They buy parties and they buy influence—and, obviously, they buy regulations that you can get rid of. It is absolutely disgraceful behaviour, yet you show no shame about it. Jeez! I have to ask you where your conscience is. Fair dinkum! You know you're not doing this properly, but still you have no shame. For some reason, whenever a major party gets into government it wants to rule the roost. You reckon you own the kingdom. You want to be the king. How about that! You want to own everything in here, or let others own you—take it whichever way you want. You reckon parliament is just a hassle that you don't have to go through, because apparently you can come up with all the answers on your own. It makes me wonder what the rest of us are doing up here, with all the captain's calls that are made. What's the point of the rest of us being here if you want to call the shots and if you don't want to do what you're supposed to do in parliament, which is debate this out? You know, there are a lot of businesses out there who have just come through COVID and are just getting back on their feet, and they're wondering when the CFMMEU is going to come knocking on their door. That's right; they're ready. They're going to come knocking on their door. There are tradies, builders and contractors who will have to go back to standing up against the bully boys in the CFMMEU all by themselves. But apparently the Labor Party has no shame about that. They're not worried about it. They have no conscience. Those people should've had a say in this. Their voices should've been heard, and you haven't allowed that to happen. They should've been able to make their case. You should've heard them out because that would've been the dignified thing to do. Instead, Labor is steamrolling our tradies. You're steamrolling them on behalf of the CFMMEU because that's what they paid you to do. There is no need for proper parliamentary process over the CFMMEU. There's no need to do a vote, because they buy them. Apparently the CFMMEU are nothing less than God's angels. They're choir boys. How about that! With the flick of a pen, you've made huge changes to the construction industry and let them off the hook—they're on the loose—with no care whatsoever for the retributions that are going to come to others, and none of us in here can do anything about it. So much for turning a new leaf in politics! So much for a new government that is going to lead by example! Puh! It just blew out like that. A great day! So much for consulting with the crossbench and doing things differently up here. It's all over red rover. Labor isn't interested in hearing all sides on this. You don't care what I think about getting rid of the ABCC or what others think about getting rid of the ABCC because, if you did, you would have given us a bill. We all could have had it out to get this right. You should've done the right thing. You could've come to us and asked what we thought and given us the chance to have our say on behalf of our voters. But, oh no, you did don't that. What really gets on my goat is that I would've worked with you on it. I would've gone back to my voters and asked them what they thought and come up with some solutions, because there are changes that need to be made. Everybody knows the ABCC has overstepped the mark at times. I have no doubt that the coalition wants it for political reasons and that some of its powers go too far. I would have heard that fight out and I would have listened to all sides. We should have been sitting in here fighting it out on the Senate floor; that's how it should have been conducted. Instead, we're going along with political games being played once again. I feel like I've stepped back in time. Labor is playing games and no-one else is invited. What do you know? They're having a party all by themselves. How rude. The back and forth is unbearable, and it brings so much instability. Every time we have a change of government the rules change for political reasons, for a different set of donors at the parliament's door, because that's how it works up here. That's really unfortunate and it's really unfortunate for the country. By the way, there's a 24-hour news cycle and the rest of the country is catching up on what these political donations are buying. The bottom line is that it makes me really sad to tell both sides in here that you're underselling yourselves and you're being bought off really cheap. That is the sad truth of the matter. The coalition gives the construction regulator stupid power and stupid laws to get a good headline and embarrass Labor. Now Labor sits in the government seats they hit back and gut the whole ABCC—as if it's all bad and there's nothing going wrong in the industry. Oh, please. Meanwhile, everyone in the industry bounces back and forth between two extremes. I can tell you, the instability in the construction industry is bloody unbearable. We never get to the actual problems that hurt tradies and their bosses. Tradies and their bosses and the industry deserve better than this. Builders and small businesses deserve better than this. That's why I'll be supporting this disallowance motion this evening. I'll tell you what I am looking forward to: watching the CFMEU run amok. And I imagine it will only be just after Christmas, because, trust me, they're way too big for their boots, and now that you've taken that choker chain off them, they're on the loose. You have completely lost control of the CFMEU, just like that, and that's going to play havoc with our industries right across this country. This is a very proud moment for the Labor party: three months in and this is where we're at. Quite frankly, I look forward to standing up here in the coming months and absolutely berating you for doing what you're doing because by then it's all going to be out in the papers. They are going to be completely out of control, and we'll be going back to before the ABCC was even put in place. I know, and we know, there are things wrong with the ABCC, but by gutting it the way you did you're inviting problems, and they're big problems, and you have no control. If you want to continue to allow yourselves to be bought off by the CFMEU because of their political donations, because you really won't back yourselves, to win future elections, that makes today a very sad day for this country. To let the construction industry loose is one of the worst things I've seen so far this year, and it is only going to get worse. But, once again, I look forward to coming in here very shortly and berating you for their behaviour, because I know exactly where it's heading. You cannot change the practice of things and the culture of things if you do not change the leadership. And if you think that leadership has been sitting silent, it's because they knew you were coming into power. Now you've allowed them to take complete advantage of you, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. But the menace is there and what they are going to do to this country in the next six to 12 months, God forbid. I look forward to you standing up and explaining yourselves. We all do. Bring it on. 19:38 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Senator Lambie, that was just an outstanding contribution and completely spot on. And the thing that gets me—because the heads are down for those that are forced to be in the chamber on the other side, and, again, kudos to Senator Sheldon for being the only person brave enough to actually come in and try and defend this—is that in the previous parliament, those opposite were the bastions of the treatment of women. Women needed to be protected, they needed to be looked after, they needed to be safe in their workplace. And I remember many a speech from the far left and those opposite about how women needed to be safe in the workplace. Well, never again should any of you have the gall to come in here and demand in any shape or form that women be safe in the workplace, because you are opening the doors wide with a big welcome sign to the CFMMEU to come in and make women unsafe in the workplace—for women to be abused, to be pandered to in a misogynistic and condescending way or to never be able to achieve anything on a building site for being shut down by misogynistic bullies. You are the government. You actually owe responsibility to all Australians, not just your mates who pay for your votes. It is an absolute disgrace, and any woman who sits in the ALP or the Greens and deems this worthy to pursue should never again open their mouth about the safety of women in the workplace, for the hypocrisy may ensure that they burst into flames immediately. We can all put up with a lot in this place, but the blatant hypocrisy that you lot are going on with is just astounding. We hear from Senator Sheldon and those opposite that the breaches that have occurred are because of a sticker on a helmet or because a flag was flying. I can tell you there are a few flags flying around here that I'm not too happy about, but I still turn up to work and pretty much make sure they're hanging up in the right way for those virtue signallers that couldn't even get the flag flying in the right direction by hanging it correctly. They're so concerned about it they don't even notice which way to put the flag. Never let a good virtue signal—a symbol—get in the way of actually improving anybody's lives! I apologise to those in this place if I repeat any, but, outrageously, I may not, because there are so many breaches that the CFMMEU has conducted and been through the ABCC for. There is such a litany of breaches and abuses on worksites that I'm pretty sure every member in this place could speak for a good 20 minutes just reading them out and just keep going and going. It would probably take us through to the end of the year, because those opposite, who campaigned on transparency, have ensured we have as few sitting weeks as possible to hold them to any form of account. I commend Senator Lambie for also making this point: Where are they all? Who's here to defend them? As I said, Senator Sheldon has turned up. Where are the rest of them? Setka might not be sending the cheques if you're not here to really stand up for him. We know you're all going to vote there, but your tummies might not be tickled as heavily if you're not here to defend him and say how absolutely fantastic the CFMMEU is. I thought I would go through a few of these because, as we know, this is a union that's been penalised for more breaches than any other union. In some ways maybe it's a bit unfair that we pick on the CFMMEU, because there are plenty of others with breaches as well. It's just that these are so breathtaking in the blatant behaviour, the misogynistic behaviour and the abuse of women—and for those who purport to be such great supporters of the LGBT community. There is a term that Judge Vasta felt so appalled by he had to put an annexure on his judgement to explain what it meant. Senator Scarr 282997 The prosecutor didn't even know what it meant. Senator HUGHES 273828 The prosecutor didn't know what it meant. I've got to tell you that I didn't know what it meant either when I first heard the term. Whilst those charged with this are appealing the decision, they're not appealing the finding that they said the term. They're appealing the finding that it was homophobic in nature. This is a term which I won't repeat in this place. I didn't know what it meant. I read Judge Vasta's annexure and I felt physically ill. Senator HUGHES 273828 Maybe go and read the annexure, Senator Chisholm, and if you think calling someone the term that was used that is so vile— Senator HUGHES 273828 Do I think that? In fact, do you know what? Just for your benefit—because Senator Chisholm here seems to think attacking the judge is something that should be brought out—I will say that the homophobic slur was 'pumpkin eater'. Do you know what it means? I didn't know what it means, but go and look it up. It is the most disgusting homophobic slur I have ever heard, and those CFMMEU members that are appealing the decision— Government senat ors interjecting— Senator HUGHES 273828 You snicker over there, and a female Labor senator is snickering over there. As this was said, they're not appealing against the finding that they said it; they're appealing that they didn't mean it in a homophobic way. What a disgrace! So don't ever come in here and say you care about women's safety on workplaces. I'm looking at the far Left of the chamber, who pretend to virtue-signal about LGBT. Don't you ever come in as you defend the CFMMEU and tear down the ABCC, as the most homophobic slurs are allowed to be put around on worksites. It is not denied that they're said. The fines that are given are just the cost of doing business for these unions. Australians are allowed to be treated this way on the workplace, whether they're gay men or whether they are women. The fact is that those opposite—that whole side of the chamber—think that this is a union that, as we just heard up here, is filled with decent people doing wonderful things. Well, I'm pretty sure that most gay men being referred to as 'pumpkin eaters' wouldn't think that was a nice thing. I identify as a woman. I was born as a woman. I maintain myself as a woman. I breastfed my children—all of those things. I can tell you: if somebody referred to me as an 'F-ing slut' and said that I will need kneepads because I'm going to be sucking off these F-ing dogs all day— Government senators interjecting— Senator HUGHES 273828 Well, do you know what? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't take it as a compliment. I wouldn't say, 'That's a pretty cracking workplace, and I want to head back there tomorrow.' I think that would be something that I might have a look at and about which I would think: 'Well, they're not a particularly pleasant person. I don't think you're providing a safe workplace for me. I don't think you're defending my rights as a worker.' I would suggest that calling someone—a woman—those things might actually be considered a little derogatory. Those opposite were the bastions of the Jenkins review, saying that we needed to adopt everything because everyone needed to feel safe in their workplace. We know Senator Thorpe pulled out a cracker to me last December,. If I wanted an apology from Adam Bandt, I apparently needed to go and get it myself and ask for one. That's the class and consistency of that lot up there. To be fair to the ALP, it is not everyone. A couple of their decent members did come and see me and say that was the most abhorrent thing that they had heard. To be fair, it was in reference to my son with a disability. It could have been misinterpreted in another way. It wasn't meant that way, and no-one heard it that way at the time in the nature of the debate. But that's equivalent, in some ways, to being referred to as an 'F-ing S'. Maybe I could enjoy— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator HUGHES 273828 Well, maybe Lidia could get to the CFMMEU and they'd actually welcome her language. Again, I think we are all clear that, if you turn up to work and bark at a woman like a dog, it's not really a sign of affection. It's not really saying to them: 'I value your work. I welcome you into this workplace.' Yet that wasn't enough for this CFMMEU official. He then called her an 'F-ng dog C'. As most women will tell you, when someone tells you they'll see you next Tuesday you'd usually think they're asking you for coffee, but occasionally in the CFMMEU that's not what they mean. They think that you should go to the police, and they say, 'You F-ing dog.' Again, those opposite—and, of course, the hypocrites of the century up the far end will insist on taking any opportunity they can to grandstand, because they love saying Parliament House isn't a safe workplace. I can tell you I feel very safe in this workplace. Most people I speak to feel very safe in this workplace, because we don't refer to each other as F-ing Ss or F-ing Cs. Well, maybe some do, but certainly not in this chamber, and certainly with it being considered unparliamentary language. But I can also say—and maybe I'm not paying attention—that no-one has ever threatened to gang-rape me. Now, rape's not about sex; it's about violence. It's not about thinking, 'She's a bit of alright,' or 'A few of us are interested in you.' This is an act of absolute misogynistic violence. Yet women on worksites are being subjected by CFMMEU officials to threats of gang rape. Yet we will hear from those opposite that the ABCC's interested in stickers on helmets. No, they are not. They are interested in protecting people at work places and worksites from being abused, from having the most derogatory and offensive language used—and not even behind their back. At least in this place when people say stuff about you it's usually kind of in the background. You hear about it through the corridors occasionally. But this is to their faces, onsite. Maybe that's what you think, because hypocrisy's your special flavour. But you might actually welcome the CFMMEU. They're not so much hypocrites as just blatantly revolting. They don't hide behind what they do. They actually promote people who behave in this way, because, as I said, these fines from the ABCC are just the cost of doing business. We could just keep going through these: three threatening phone calls, late at night, to a female inspector. Is this the way the ALP and the Greens think anyone should behave—that women should go home from work to be subjected to a continuing form of intimidation and harassment? As if it isn't enough that they are being abused on the worksite. I genuinely ask the question, and I look forward to hearing from those opposite as they go through the litany of findings from the ABCC, as they go through the decisions that have made. I mean, it almost seems silly that anyone could be offended by being called a bimbo or daddy's girl on a site, because maybe they should be grateful that they aren't called an F-ing C. It's almost as though the person who called them a bimbo and a daddy's girl didn't get the memo that we'd upped the language! I feel as though that was the kindergarten side of things, and those who have moved up into the more senior echelons of the CFMMEU use language that is so derogatory that it can't even be used in this place. So I do look forward and I hope we see some of them tonight, if any of them are actually paying attention. They can put it on channel 104. It will tell them what is being debated. They won't even have to think for themselves. They can come in here and just say to us: 'We think it is completely appropriate to refer to women as F-ing Cs at the workplace; not only that, but we think it is completely appropriate to continue that harassment and intimidation when they go home with late-night phone calls. We don't think women should be safe in the workplace, but we are going to hypocritically stand here at every opportunity and bark on about safety in the workplace whilst they allow this to occur.' 19:53 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise with my Greens colleagues to speak against this disallowance motion. At the outset I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Barbara Pocock, who clearly put the case for why this disallowance motion is just part of the coalition's ongoing attack on unions, part of the coalition's bias against unions. I commend her for her contribution. The creation of the ABCC and the aggressive code that they enforce was a deeply political attack by the Liberal Party, who designed a body to target unions, to target workers and to do everything they could to make it unlawful to be a union in this country, particularly in the construction industry. We've seen repeated million-dollar fines and police raids, trumped-up criminal charges and perhaps the harshest anti-union laws directed against the construction unions that exist in any comparable country on the planet. And of course this was all drafted by former PM Tony Abbott and the now disgraced former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, and it was designed by those two to target the construction union and try to put the union out of business. And while millions and millions of dollars of public money has been lavished on this attack on the construction union, the industry is largely unregulated, and construction firms that kill their workers, kill young apprentices, go off without a single prosecution. And what do we hear from the coalition about the deaths of building workers? Not one word. Did we see anybody from the coalition go and see the film Lethal Bias? Did any of them go, to hear from the parents, hear from the mums, hear from the dads, who were talking about their kids who went to work at a construction site—unregulated because of your rules, without a union because of your rules—and died on site and didn't come home? And there was not a single word from this bunch of hypocrites over here. They're still backing in Tony Abbott's war on unions. They don't care about the young apprentice who was killed in a scissor lift or the collapsing scaffold that's been dodgily put together, where it's a crime for the union to go on and do a safety inspection, under their rules. They don't care. They want to criminalise the union, take the union out of business, because they don't care. Well, we won't support that code. The lawlessness in this industry is not from people putting stickers on helmets or posters in lunch rooms. The lawlessness in this industry comes from builders cutting safety corners, excluding the union, failing to live up to their work health and safety obligations and seeing workers go to work and not come home. That's the lawlessness from the unregulated industry. But I've got to say, at a state level, it has been a combined project of Labor and coalition governments—deregulating the construction industry, making it one of the most dangerous industries in this country, full of phoenix companies, tax dodgers, work health and safety breaches and crimes. That's the industry they love, because it maximises profit. They don't care about the apprentices who don't come home. They don't care about worksite safety. They want to have a war on stickers and a war on flags, not a war about safety or protecting anybody, because that's their politics, right? They hate unions, they love profits and they don't give a rats about safety. That's the coalition summed up in one go, and that's what this motion is about. A watchdog with teeth is clearly needed in the construction industry to keep an eye on the employers and keep an eye on unions if they step out of line, but not to be running multi-million-dollar cases because you don't like a bunch of posters in the lunch room or you don't like stickers on someone's hat or a flag on a crane. What are you afraid of with a flag on a crane? I appreciate some of the work of Josh Bornstein. He has fought some of these nonsense cases. He wrote a piece in March this year setting out some of the outrageous hypocrisy in this space. He points out a prosecution of union officials who visited a union delegate to catch up over a cup of tea. That was the prosecution: a union official catching up with a union delegate over a cup of tea. It was a case commenced by the ABCC. Do you know what the Federal Court said about it? This is what the federal judge said: … this is a case where the ABCC should be publicly exposed as having wasted public money without a proper basis for doing so … But you love that. It's not your money; it's just taxpayers' money! You don't read the judgement. You don't care. And then Bornstein says: And who can forget the televised raids by federal police on the premises of the Australian Workers Union in late 2017? That was apparently because they didn't do their paperwork 10 years ago. It was a highly publicised, televised raid on the AWU for 10-year-old paperwork, all paid for, under this mob in government, by the taxpayers. Bornstein also points out: In his zeal to prevent union officials from attending workplaces, Nigel Hadgkiss, then the head of the ABCC, published misinformation encouraging employers to restrict unions from accessing workplaces. Such conduct was found to have contravened the Fair Work Act, and Hadgkiss was forced to resign in 2017. ABCC itself engaged in serious unlawful activity, and what did we get from this lot? Not even embarrassment. They just put some new headkicker into the ABCC. They don't even care. In fact, they gave Hadgkiss a nice little retirement gift, again at public expense. Bornstein says this as well: Two years earlier— that's two years before Hadgkiss, the head of the ABCC, breached the Fair Work Act to try and discourage union activities— two union officials had their lives turned upside down when they were charged with blackmail over a coffee meeting with company executives to discuss an industrial dispute. The charges fell apart three years later. They fell apart. But that's what those opposite want to spend taxpayers' money on, Mr Acting Deputy President. Meanwhile, under their watch, when the corporate regulator, ASIC, exposed what was going on in Crown Resorts—and again I appreciate Borstein's summary here: ASIC said that it would not prosecute the directors of Crown Resorts notwithstanding findings by an independent inquiry that Crown had engaged in "conduct that was variously illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative" over many years. According to the Finkelstein inquiry, the illegal conduct included money laundering, lying to the gaming regulator and tax cheating. Its board was found to have failed to ensure that the company met its legal obligations. But this lot love Crown. They love Crown. They love the gross illegality of Crown. They love it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Colbeck on a point of order? Senator Colbeck 00AOL A point of order on relevance: we are talking about a disallowance on the ABCC; we're not talking about Crown. We're talking about the ABCC and the disallowance motion in relation to the ABCC. We're not talking about other matters in the economy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Thank you, Senator Colbeck. You have reminded the senator of the subject that we're discussing right now—disallowance. I return the call to Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I understand the embarrassment about having the hypocrisy of your former government pointed out. I understand that it's awkward to have pointed out the gross double standards and hypocrisy whereby you're willing to prosecute unions for stickers but not prosecute a multinational gaming corporation that was found to have engaged in money-laundering and criminal activity under your own watch. I understand that the hypocrisy is awkward to hear. I get it, and I get it's awkward. But let's be clear: the risk to workers' safety is not flags. It has never been stickers. The risk to workers' safety in the construction industry is the lawlessness, the deregulation, the attacks on unions and the attacks on safety. That's why young apprentices go to work in the morning and don't come home. That's why construction workers, tragically, have deaths on a weekly basis on construction sites. It's not about stickers. It's not about flags. It's because of the war on safety, the war on unions, the deregulation and the property developer donations that this mob suck down, day after day—the property developer donations that roll like gold into the Liberal Party's coffers federally, creating the lawlessness that's creating the safety issues on the construction sites. Of course we don't support this disallowance motion. 20:04 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Well, well, we couldn't expect anything better from an inner-city barrister who loudly proclaimed that he was a proud member of the BLF and worked with the BLF in his former history. But this isn't about attacking the union membership. I want to be very clear: this is about protecting the union membership from the union officials who use violence and intimidation against workers. Somehow, it's this side of the chamber that doesn't care about working-class Australians. This side of the chamber believes in working-class Australians. I can assure you that it's the inner-city elites, whether they're big companies, big unions or big bureaucracies—there's not much difference between them these days. Don't come in here and accuse the Liberal Party of not standing up for working-class Australians. Come to Queensland, Senator Shoebridge. I'll tell you who the working class Australians stand up for. Look at the outer-metropolitan seats. The working class back us because we back the working class. We back the working class! We have seen what 30 years of Labor and their union mates have done to our economy in Queensland. They have run it into the ground. For you to come in here and talk about hypocrisy—Senator Hughes just gave one of the best speeches I've ever heard in this chamber, calling out the hypocrisy of those on the other side. They come in here and feign as though they care about women. They feign as though they care about workers. They feign as though they care about essential services. They don't care about any of it! All they care about are their rivers of gold. Why is that? Because over the last 20 years the CFMMEU has put more than $16 million into the Labor Party—and that's just one union. For you to come in here and say that somehow we are living off other donations or anything like that is totally false. Not that you'd know, Senator Shoebridge, living in your little ivory palace in Sydney, in the eastern suburbs. Don't talk to me about the battlers, mate. Queensland Health blew billions of dollars on the Sunshine Coast hospital, and that money got sucked out of the maternity wards in the regions because of cost overruns. Because of union bullying, they're going into inner-city Brisbane and building casinos and a tunnel from one side of the city to the other. That's going to cost about $10 billion. It already has a couple of billions of dollars in overruns. It's going from one side of the city to the other. Do you know what that does? It kills essential services. And all you care about is casting aspersions that the Australian Building and Construction Commission is a spurious body. Well, here's a little fact for you: 98 of the 107 cases have prosecuted the unions. That is not spurious. They have found the unions guilty. That is not a spurious body. It's one of the few bureaucratic or judicial institutions that actually achieves something. That is an over 91 per cent success rate. You come in here hand you mock this. You trivialise it by saying that this body is going after unions because they're waving flags or flying flags or there are stickers on their helmets. No, this is much more serious than that. This is about violence in the workplace. It is about cost overruns. It is about misogyny. It is about the fact that the money's being wasted on cost overruns because of the mates, the tier 1 construction companies. I can assure you that we're no friend of the tier 1 construction companies. They're in bed with big unions. So this whole idea that you're going to keep painting us as the party for the big end of town—no, no, no. The Greens is the party at the big end of town. The Greens seats are all in inner-city Brisbane and Melbourne, and the teals are all in the rich suburbs. The Greens party, the unicorn party, is the party for the elites who don't want to do the hard yards—unlike the workers who put their noses to the grindstone. I tell you what, those seats are all coming our way, especially in Queensland. We are starting to see it in Western Sydney. We see it in outer Melbourne, because you guys are only interested in your rivers of gold and your command and control, where you get to dictate the rules to everyone. A classic example was vaccine mandates. You guys could have stood up for those workers who exercised their free and democratic right to choose what goes into their body. Where were the unions then? They were nowhere. Or I should say, where were the union officials? I have to distinguish between the membership, who I do care about because they are the people, the workers, who put their noses to the grindstone. But the union officials and the Labor Party are not interested in the workers. What they're interested in doing is driving small business into the ground, getting into bed with their big foreign-owned tier-1 building contractors and the unions, making sure that they rip out rivers of gold, whether it be via union fees, superannuation fees or by managing over a trillion dollars in wealth on behalf of the workers. They have marched into the corporate boardrooms via their industry super funds and are running our companies into the ground. I am going to run through here exactly the misbehaviour that the CFMMEU and many other unions get up to. This is the abuse and misuse of power by these union officials, who aren't actually standing up for the workers. They're not interested in the guys who go to work every day, who get out of bed, who put their nose to the grindstone, no. So let's go through this. They paid $2 million in penalties just in the last financial year alone. The Australian Building and Construction Commission has received a successful outcome in 80 out of 88 cases against the CFMMEU. Over $16 million in penalties have been awarded against the CFMMEU and its representatives since 16 December. Another $22 million in penalties have been awarded against the CFMMEU and its representatives in cases brought by the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These aren't trivial amounts of money. They're not penalties or fines because someone wore a sticker on their helmet or flew a flag or anything like that, no. This is all because of violent misogynistic behaviour going on within unions and in workplaces that is actually intimidating people working there, and it's also increasing the cost of building essential services. I tell you what, we need to start building in this country. If we're going to keep this country on its feet, we need to get more infrastructure going in this country, but you cannot do it because of this cosy relationship between tier-1 foreign building constructors and the union movement. The union officials are basically doing out the taxpayer because the taxpayers are forking out billions of dollars more than they need to in order to build this essential infrastructure and it has got to stop. Let's just go through some of the actual egregious misbehaviour by union officials towards their own members. The thing about the Australian Building and Construction Commission is it's a union that actually fights against union officials. I mean, if the union officials were doing their jobs properly, the members wouldn't be intimidated. They wouldn't be assaulted. They wouldn't have these spurious names, as Senator Hughes pointed out previously. The behaviour is outrageous. Senator Chisholm was sitting there smirking at this when it was all going on. Somehow this will be the new intimidation practice—to sit there and smirk. This is on top of his intimidation of Senator Cash this afternoon. I mean, this behaviour goes on right here in this chamber. We have seen it from Senator Chisholm. We're used it to from Senator Watt. It's not the sort of behaviour we should be tolerating. It is not on. A CFMMEU official was jailed for assault and once told a female inspector that she—I won't even repeat the words. He asked if she had brought kneepads because she was going to be beep, beep, beep dogs all day. This stuff is outrageous. The Courier Mail revealed that a CFMMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant at a Gold Coast construction site and said: 'Go on, off you go, you beep dog. Beep, get your police.' He allegedly called her 'a beep dog, beep beep' twice more that day. How is it that the Labor Party want to abolish a commission that is standing up for women in the workplace? What is it with the Greens party? Why are you standing up there and basically removing a safeguard for women in the workplace? Seriously! What is the reason for this? The reason is that Labor are all talk and no action. They don't care about women; they don't care about the working class; they don't care about providing essential services. All they want to do is get their rivers of gold from the union movement—whether it be through union fees, whether it be through superannuation fees, whether it be through controlling all that money in their industry super funds. All they want is command and control because that is the modus operandi of the two parties opposite us, the Labor Party and the Greens party. All they want to do is tear down and destroy this country in order that a few inner-city elites—and people are waking up to this. Working-class Australians are waking up to just how dangerous and how—they're seeing through the Labor Party. The Labor Party used to stand up for the working class, but not anymore. The working classes are seeing how dangerous this party and the Greens party combined are going to be. You've only got to look at who's running the show. We've got the Prime Minister, he's from inner-city Sydney. We've got people from the Greens over here; they're from the inner-city as well. They've always had good essential services where they've grown up—St Vincent's Hospital and things like that. But why won't they stand up for people in metropolitan Australia and regional Australia? Why won't they do that? Because that is where the wealth of this country comes from. It is the backbone of this country, they are working-class people, and Labor have turned their backs on them. By trying to remove this body from standing up to the thuggery and the violence and the intimidation in the union movement, Labor are revealing their true colours—they do not care about the Australian worker. This country was built by the battler; it belongs to the battlers. And I can assure you that we on this side of the chamber are going to do everything we can to make sure it's the battlers who are rewarded. If Labor had their way, they would concentrate power within the bureaucracy, within the unions and within big business with their inner-city mates in their ivory towers of Sydney and Melbourne and basically let the rest of the country fade away. They'd be happy with that. I tell you what: we on this side of the chamber aren't going to let that happen—you watch! Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, knows a thing or two about the working class. He's been standing up for the good people of Dickson for the last 20 years. You've been writing him off, but I tell you what: he knows what it's like. He grew up on a farm—he's got a multigenerational family out there at Samford. I'm from a multigenerational working-class family. My grandparents used to vote blue-collar Labor, but do you know what? You guys lost the plot. You became Marxists and communists and you forgot that the true capitalists in this country are the people who get out of bed every day, put their noses to the grindstones and do the hard yards. But you're not interested in that; you're interested in protecting your bureaucrats and your unions and your big corporate end of town. None of these guys—these guys aren't your primary and secondary industries. They're not your farmers, they're not your miners, they're not your manufacturing industry. Who can remember the Hawke-Keating years? You destroyed the manufacturing industry under the Button plan, yet you subsidised the academic sector. You now have an academic sector that is out of control, selling university degrees for all sorts of crazy studies. And how you do you solve the problem? You bring in more immigrants to fix the labour shortage that is only caused because so many people—50,000 people—work in paper shuffling within superannuation alone. About 150,000 work in universities—most of these degrees aren't worthwhile degrees. Sure, STEM degrees, medicine—I get it. You go to university if you want an engineering degree and things like that. I get it. But the fact that you guys are trying to remove this commission just goes to show that you don't care about the real people in this country. You're not interested in standing up against violence, intimidation, sexual assault and misogyny. Shame on you Labor and shame on you the Greens! 20:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Unlike most who have spoken—in fact, probably unlike anyone who has spoken in this chamber—I actually have worked in the construction industry. I started working in the foundations of buildings. I did my trades apprenticeship as a carpenter-joiner. I worked on construction sites and I saw the impact of good unions and the impact of bad unions. I have a good friend who was a boss and had a picket through his windscreen as he drove onto a construction site that had a militant union. It's an outrage that those on the other side come into this place and run a protection racket for bad unions and bad union leadership. This is not about flags and stickers. For those on the other side to try to hide behind a cliche that this is about flags and stickers and people who just don't like unions is a complete and utter cop-out. In fact, it's outrageous. We all sat in this place over the last three years while we investigated and condemned poor behaviour in this workplace, particularly against women. Yet those on the other side, particularly as we have seen in contributions from the Greens just now, are effectively running a protection racket for those who abuse women, who threaten women with unspeakable things. I imagine what would be said about any of those on this side had we been associated with anybody like that—the outrage that would have come from the other side of the chamber. It would have been relentless. It would have been unending. And yet what's happening right now from Labor and apparently from the Greens is that they're running a protection racket for those who threaten women in ways that so many of my colleagues have put on the record here tonight and I don't intend to do, because it is outrageous and a disgrace. You don't rack up millions of dollars of fines for flags and stickers. The Supreme Court and the High Court don't award damages of that scale for somebody who has flags and stickers. It's an absolute outrage and a disgrace that anybody would come into this place and try to use that as a smokescreen for what we all know is happening in the construction industry and which this side, the coalition, tried to rein in. I agree with Senator Lambie. It's an outrage that there are attempts to use this process to try to undermine the efforts and the role of the ABCC, which brings us to the situation where we have to go through this disallowance process. They on the other side don't have the courage to bring in legislation that will put in place their version of what they say will be an effective watchdog. We know it's needed. I give Labor credit for the action that they took when they were in government last time and dealt with the BLF. Bob Hawke actually dealt with this behaviour once before. This government doesn't have the courage to do that effectively or properly. I had forgotten that Senator Shoebridge had worked with the BLF. He talked about his work on the green bans. I completely differentiate what occurred in Sydney with regard to the green bans from what I know happened on construction sites around this country, where concrete pours were disrupted, where companies were stood over so that they didn't supply materials to certain construction businesses that wouldn't do things the way the CFMEU wanted them to. It's an absolute outrage that we have to go through this process and not through a formal process, a genuine plan to fix the current structure if that is what Labor actually want to do. To hide behind the smokescreen of flags and stickers when we've heard colleague after colleague, particularly Senator Reynolds and Senator Hughes, get up and detail the way that women were spoken to and the way that women were treated on building sites is an absolute outrage—that they actually had to do that and that we are talking about that sort of behaviour on building sites. As for the excuse that it's a robust working environment, it has been said that this is a robust working environment, but we don't tolerate that sort of language and that sort of behaviour to women in this workplace. On what planet is a woman, someone going about their work, in any other workplace in this country than a building site treated in that way? That's not a safe workplace. For somebody going onto a building site to be abused, to be threatened and to be spoken to in that matter is not a safe workplace, so any discussion from the other side that this is about workplace safety is a complete and utter crock as well. It's not. In fact those that are perpetuating that are creating unsafe workplaces. Those on the other side try and pass it off as flags and stickers. They hide behind, 'It's a robust workplace. It's about workplace safety.' Senator Shoebridge's suggestion that construction sites are unregulated I find distressing— Senator Scarr 282997 Bizarre. Senator COLBECK 00AOL and bizarre, Senator Scarr, coming from someone who just came from a state legislature. They have regulatory oversight of building sites and workplace safety through their state-based regulations. He was obviously not too effective a regulator as a legislator in his previous life in the New South Wales parliament. But it is an absolute outrage and a disgrace that we have to be considering this. I thought it might be worth considering the economic impacts of this, considering where we're looking to go over the next decade. Obviously from the last parliament, due to the actions of the coalition Queensland is in the very delightful position of being able to host the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. According to economic modelling, the potential impact of the removal of the ABCC is an additional 9.1 per cent to the cost of building projects over the next decade. I made a contribution in this place a few weeks ago in relation to the failure of this new government so far to put in place the deal the coalition insisted on with the Queensland government to ensure that there would be some discipline around the billions of dollars in expenditure for the construction of the infrastructure required for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032. We have a Queensland government which at this point in time runs at the behest of the unions and is completely out of control. We're not going to put in place some very sensible provisions about the decision-making and expenditure of Commonwealth taxpayer funds on a fifty-fifty basis with the Queensland government for the construction of infrastructure. Now we're going to take away the discipline of the ABCC, and can you imagine what it's going to be like if this government goes ahead with pattern bargaining? Unions, particularly the CFMMEU, would be out of control, if they're not already, potentially adding billions in cost to the construction of the infrastructure for what will be a magnificent event for Australia in 2032, the Olympic and Paralympic Games. There's about $12 billion worth of infrastructure to be built for those games, and at nine per cent we're talking about over $1 billion. That's just for the removal of the ABCC. Just imagine what patent bargaining might do to that as well—and no economic supervision through a joint administrative body that was proposed by the then Commonwealth government. We're very concerned about how the Queensland government will make decisions about that infrastructure. When you have a Queensland minister saying that the Gabba, for example, which is a billion-dollar project, is really just a sketch at this point in time, what's there protecting Australian taxpayers' dollars? There is a lot of discussion from this government about being sound economic managers, yet the decisions that it's making are going in exactly the opposite direction in relation to a significant event that we're looking to welcome in a decade's time and the costs that might be appropriated as part of that process. As I worked my way through the construction industry, as I said before, I saw good unions and I saw bad unions. When I was operating in the sector in a professional sense, in the administration of the construction industry, there were some in the union movement that you could have a great relationship with, who you could work with, and you could get good deals for your business and for your workforce. That's what we want to see; we want to see a constructive and positive relationship. But I can tell you that we all felt it when the bad things were happening, when big building companies did deals with big unions and the cost of that trickled down through the rest of the industry. We all saw that. We all felt that. I already have had small businesses come to me saying that they are already being threatened by the unions. They are already being threatened by the unions, particularly the CFMMEU, because the unions know, if Labor gets this through, they're off the leash 'This is what's going to happen to you. This is what we're going to do to your business. This is how we're going to make it harder for you to work and this is what you're going to pay.' These threats are already being made in the construction industry. I don't want to smear the frontline workers, the workers on job sites, with the same traits that are coming from the union leadership. I agree with those in the chamber who've made statements about wanting workers to go to work and come home safe. I've been there; I've been on construction sites and I know what trauma it brings right through the workforce when something goes wrong—through the workforce, through a business and through all of those associated with it. That's not what any of us want to see. This is not about being anti union. This is not about being anything other than wanting to see appropriate behaviour, good behaviour, on worksites. This is wanting to make sure that those horrific examples put on the record by Senator Hughes and Senator Reynolds don't happen again. We don't accept them in our workplace. No other worker in any workplace should accept them either, because that's not a safe workplace. The suggestion that it's a robust industry and so you expect some of these things to the happen is a complete cop-out. I won't accept the Labor Party and the Greens running a protection racket for this abhorrent behaviour. I will stand up every day for people on the frontline in the workforce because I've been there. I'm one of the few in this place who actually has. I will be supporting this disallowance motion because it should be supported in the interests of good behaviour in the construction industry to make sure that anybody working in the sector can go to work safe, not be threatened and go home safe and that the appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place throughout the sector. 20 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland With the indulgence of the chamber, before I get into the meat of this disallowance, I would like to pay homage to Senator Cadell and his first speech from earlier this evening. Ross and I worked on the Country Liberal campaign up in Darwin back in 2012. I've known him since then, and I can see that he's going to be such a strong fighter for regional and rural New South Wales and across Australia. His earthy sense of humour and his self-deprecation will be a welcome addition to this place. I thank the chamber for allowing me that small indulgence before I get down into what we're here for. What's interesting, for those who might be listening at home or over the worldwide web, is the name of what we're dealing with here. We keep talking about a disallowance. It's a motion for disallowance of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. What the Labor Party are doing is trying to slowly strangle a safe workplace in Australia. Before they can get legislation before the chamber, they've brought forward regulations that, in the words of Tony Burke, will mean the Australian Building and Construction Commission's powers will be pulled back to the 'bare legal minimum'. That's what this is about. This is about the Labor Party doing the bidding of their union paymasters. What is interesting if you're a student of history and especially if you're from Queensland, like Senator Scarr is, is that Queensland is the birthplace of the Labor Party. It came from a shearers' strike. The Labor Party came out of the union movement. The Labor Party was established as the political wing of the union movement. Labor senators and MPs are very proud of that, and good on them; I'm sure their parents are proud. But what has happened with the modern Labor Party is that it actually isn't the political wing of the union movement; the union movement has become the campaign wing of the Labor Party. The Labor Party, in its soul, has died. The flame on the hill of Prime Minister Chifley has become a sort of damp sponge. What has happened with the union movement is that they've effectively become subcontractors to the Labor Party, as you might see set up in some of the government affairs agencies around town. What the union movement do is say to the Labor Party, 'Look, we'll campaign for your election, but we want something in return.' Remember, for those who are listening and fellow senators, the union movement now has only about 10 per cent of the workforce. Nine out of 10 Australians don't join a union. I'm someone who proudly believes in freedom of association—that you should have the right to join an industrial association and the right to join a union but also the right not to join an industrial association or union. So what the Labor Party do, through their subcontractors in the union movement who run these public campaigning bodies, is try to protect the institutional power of unions. Unions have failed in their fundamental reason for existence—that is to be mass membership organisations that defend the rights of the working class. They don't do that anymore. They defend the rights of union officials. For those who are listening, this debate is not about union members. This debate is not about the right to join a union or not join a union. This debate is about the exercise of power by union officials. In particular, it is about the exercise of power by union officials who, over the decades, have proven themselves incapable of understanding good governance, but proven themselves capable of understanding the power of thuggery, understanding the power of corruption and understanding the power of pure malice. That is sad because that reflects upon the entire union movement. It reflects poorly—and this is quite sad—on those union members who trust those union officials to do what is in their best interests. That does not happen with the CFMMEU, because this effectively is a criminal organisation. It is an organisation who exists not to protect the rights of its members. This organisation exists purely to protect the power—the feudal power—that exists within the structure of the CFMMEU. We've heard tonight some very powerful examples. I want to commend Senator Reynolds and, in particular, Senator Hughes's very strong and very touching approaches about how safety in the workplace is disregarded by the Labor Party and the union movement when politics are involved. We hear in this place loudly and clearly that we must have safe workplaces across Australia, and, indeed, in this building we've had reviews and committees. As Senator Hughes very eloquently said she's never felt unsafe in this place, but she did go through some examples of what women and what some gay Australians have had to deal with in the workplace because of officials of the CFMMEU. What is interesting is that of the speakers opposite, none of them—none of them—have commented on or expanded upon why they think that the conduct of these union officials is right or defensible, because they know it's not. Remember that in the UK we do have—and I am looking forward to the announcement of the new British Prime Minister in 45 minutes time—the House of Lords, an appointed chamber with 92 hereditary peers. But in Australia we've got the Senate which is, for the Labor Party, the house of retired union barons. They come here after serving a term or two as the assistant general secretary of some acronym. They come in here as part of a deal and they sit on the benches over there. Quite frankly, they don't add much to this place except when they depart and then someone else comes in to warm that particular seat. This is what is sad. You'd think that these union officials who sit opposite us would defend the right of all Australians to have a safe workplace. But, no, they don't do that. Remember that the unions are subcontractors to the Labor Party—and we experienced this during the May election, when my side sadly lost. But what was interesting was the dying Labor Party infrastructure across Australia and how it was saved—or salvaged—by the union movement. I experienced this on various prepolls around the place. You would have these charming—I use that word sarcastically—men, and they're always men, who would come along from the particular union headquarters. They'd have their tattoos and their generally menacing approach to life, where they snarl at trees and chase cars. What they'd love to do was intimidate people. They'd stand over the little old ladies and little old men of the LNP—that's why I love my party, because the little old ladies and little old men would stand their ground as the union thugs would stand over them and intimidate them and call them all sorts of terrible names. That's when we get to the breaches of a safe workplace that the CFMMEU have been found to undertake. I know it's true. I don't need a court of law to tell me that because I've seen that on polling day. I've seen that on what should be a day of celebration of our boisterous democracy, when often there are frank exchanges of views between the Left, the Right, the far left over there and the Greens. But what the union thugs do is always take it to the next level and threaten violence against the coalition volunteers. And they are volunteers, whereas these aren't union members; they're union officials and union thugs. The CFMMEU has been penalised for more breaches of the Fair Work Act than any other union. I am going to read out some of the findings of what's happened in these workplaces because I want those opposite to defend the actions of these union officials. I want them to get up and say that it was right for a CFMMEU official who once was jailed for assault to tell a female inspector she was an effing, well, S-word that rhymes with glut, asking her if she brought kneepads because 'you are going to be sucking off these'—goodness me—'effing dogs all day.' I want those union officials over there to come into this place and defend those actions. So yes, that was what should happen in a workplace! This is why we need an honest cop out there. This is why we need the Australian Building and Construction Commission because they go in and stop this behaviour. The Courier Mail revealed that a CFMMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site. From memory, this was when the Commonwealth Games were being structured. This charming guy who you'd love to take home and meet your parents—imagine him sitting around the dining table—said, 'Go on, off you go, you effing dog'—goodness—'C. Go get your police.' Then he went on to call her. We love the Left over here, who are always speaking about the rights of women and the rights of minorities but not when it comes to those women and those minorities who might have a different view to them as to the role of thuggish union officials. No, they don't have their rights. They don't have any rights, not in a workplace that is going to be governed by officials of the CFMMEU. Welcome to the modern Labor Party: the party that, as Senator Rennick said, is not the party of the working class; it is the party who defend the rights of spivs and thugs to threaten women and members of minority communities in Australia. The CFMMEU delegates have also been accused of harassing the daughter of a builder when they picketed a worksite. This is charming, isn't it? This is our building industry, which is so important for Australia's economy and so important to make sure that people have jobs, that people have skills, that people have homes, that we have roads and that we have everything that we can build to make Australia a better place. We're not talking about some two-bit business, as much as I love two-bit businesses because I'm a big fan of small businesses. This is a multibillion dollar industry that is held to ransom by the thugs of the CFMMEU. Because of their failure to act, grow and mature as a political party over the decades, the Labor Party needs to subcontract their campaigning to the unions. People talk about the need for a federal corruption commission: 'The Labor Party's going to bring that in.' And I wonder sometimes whether the Labor Party doing a policies-for-votes deal with the union movement would fall within the remit of an anti-corruption commission. Is the Labor Party saying to the union movement, 'Campaign for us and we will deliver the following policies,' or is it a case of the union movement saying to the Labor Party, 'We'll campaign for you if you deliver the following for us.' In terms of some of the definitions of this anticorruption commission, I wonder whether I'll be knocking on that door at 9 am when this anticorruption commission opens and lodging complaints there about the conduct and behaviour of this terrible, terrible octopus that is the modern Labor Party and the failing union movement. 20:50 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria In contemplating my contribution to this debate I carefully listened to the contributions of other senators. I listened to the contributions of my coalition colleagues and, in particular, to those who shared the harrowing stories and shocking examples of the misbehaviour of CFMMEU officials targeted towards women, minorities, workers and public servants. I also listened to the contributions of the Greens, who, to their credit, have so far in this debate provided more senators to speak in defence of the government's actions in this area than the government has provided to speak in their own defence. And, of course, I listened to the contribution from the sole Labor speaker so far, Senator Sheldon. I wonder whether Senator Sheldon— Senator Watt 245759 A number of us spoke last time. Senator PATERSON 144138 Thank you, Senator Watt, for that interjection. I look forward to further contributions from your colleagues. I wonder whether Senator Sheldon drew the short straw in caucus this morning and is their designated speaker for the day to come in and defend the indefensible, or whether he is the only one who has the courage to show up and defend the conduct of the CFMMEU. I sincerely try to put myself in the shoes of those opposite, many of whom ran no doubt very sincerely committed to the advancement of women and minorities and to the defence of the rule of the law. Yet they will come into this place when this motion is put for a vote and dutifully do as they are told and defend conduct which surely even they know deep down is not right, is not okay and is not something that we should want to see in Australia. I puzzle to myself: what is the possible reason why good people would come in and defend such reprehensible conduct? I'm sorry, but after reflecting and listening to the contributions of all senators there really only is one possible contribution—it is, as other senators have alluded to, ultimately all about money. The CFMMEU is one of the Labor Party's most important financial benefactors. In the last 20 years alone they have donated $16.3 million of their members' dues to the Labor Party. That's $16 million that's allowed the Labor Party to run and finance their campaigns and, ultimately, to prevail at the last federal election and to occupy the government benches. Maybe they can tell themselves in the quiet of their room in the dark of the night when they're reflecting on their contribution to public life that it might have been a bit uncomfortable to defend this reprehensible conduct, but it was worth it because that $16 million allowed them to win the election and to be in government. I wish I could say that this was an isolated case. I wish I could say it was the only instance of the Labor Party making moral compromises for donations. But it's not, because in just the first 100 days of this new government they haven't done much. They haven't outlined a plan to address the cost-of-living crisis facing Australians. But one thing they've done very well—one thing they've done remarkably efficiently and productively—is deliver for the constituencies who delivered for them, particularly for their financial backers. This is, in fact, a pattern of behaviour. We've seen it in the regulations issued recently to try to protect super funds from the measures of disclosure and transparency that the former government—particularly the good work of Senator Hume, who was the responsible minister in the previous parliament—imposed upon them. All that we ask, which I don't think is an unreasonable thing, is that, when they are donating their super members' money to causes, political and otherwise, they disclose that to their members and they be transparent about that to their members. Yet, in its first 100 days, this government has issued a regulation to try to obscure that information and hide it from those super fund members. The Assistant Treasurer, Mr Jones, has even laughably said that this is a red tape reduction measure and that this is about reducing the cost of compliance and the regulatory burden on super funds. He was very embarrassed when Michael Roddan at the Financial Review pointed out that other areas of the law, in particular reporting obligations to APRA, already require super funds to provide this information. The only thing this regulation did was to make it public. Why would the Labor Party be so passionate about delivering for super funds, by helping them to cover it up? My colleague, Senator Bragg, who I know is going to make a contribution shortly, has very deftly exposed over the last few months why that would be the case. Because in just one financial year alone, the most recent financial year for which we have data—2020 to 2021—super funds paid $12.9 million to the union movement. And we know those funds don't just go from super funds to the union movement and stay there. They help subsidise the political campaigning activity of the union movement and, ultimately, the political donations that the union movement makes to the Labor Party. So this is yet another example of the Labor Party trading donations for regulatory favours when they get into government. Unfortunately, this is only one of many examples, because at 4.30 on Friday afternoon—it's always a bit of a giveaway when ministers issue a media release at that time—the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, and again our favourite Assistant Treasurer, Mr Jones, issued a media release. The footy finals were on and people were heading away for the weekend, but just in time, before journalists clocked off, they shared the news that they were also overturning regulations governing litigation funders and class actions. To give you a brief recap of the history of this issue, it has become very clear in recent years that the conduct of class action law firms and litigation funders is underregulated, and that the victims of that lack of regulation have been successful class action participants who banded together, finally had their day in court and won their case. When it came time for the proceeds of that successful action to be handed out among those class action participants, they got cents on the dollar. And they got cents on the dollar because the overwhelming lion's share of those proceeds instead went to class action law firms and the litigation funders who finance their activities. These are litigation funders who are typically located in tax haven jurisdictions like the Virgin Islands, the Jersey Islands or the Cayman Islands. These are litigation funders who are treating our justice system like it is a casino and generating returns on investment for their initial outlays of the many hundreds of per cent. And in fact it emerged during an inquiry I chaired in the previous parliament that these funds are so oversubscribed that every time they advertise for an injection of new funds from overseas investors they cannot meet the demand. And why wouldn't you invest with such guaranteed lucrative returns through the Australian justice system? Quite reasonably, the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, issued a regulation which required some very basic and minimal compliance on the part of these litigation funders and class action law firms. One of the things it required of them was that they apply for and obtain an AFSL—an Australian Financial Services Licence. One of the key criteria for obtaining and holding an AFSL is that you must conduct yourself honestly, efficiently and fairly. It remains an open question which one of those three criteria—honesty, efficiency or fairness—that litigation funders and class action law firms are unwilling or unable to comply with, and which one of those things this government, the Albanese government, thinks is an unreasonable thing to require of them. These regulations, issued by Mr Dreyfus and Mr Jones, would have the effect of removing that requirement from class action law firms and their partners in the litigation funding industry. So why would it be that late on a Friday afternoon, within its first few months in office, one of the priorities of the Albanese government was to issue a regulation to remove basic compliance and oversight of an unregulated industry? To explain the answer to that question I turned to a Janet Albrechtsen article in the Australian newspaper published on 16 May 2020 in which she writes: In the 2009-10 financial year, Maurice Blackburn donated $163,300 to Labor, then its highest donation on record to the party. The previous year it sent only $12,951 Labor's way, and the year before that it was just $12,616. For the next 10 years, Maurice Blackburn donated more than $1m to Labor, compared with $257,767 over the previous decade. In the last financial year, with a state election in Victoria in November 2018 and the federal election the following May, Maurice Blackburn donated $354,805 to Labor, the third-largest donation on record. It gave a further $200,000 to the ACTU, which campaigned for Labor. That is just one class action law firm and just one snapshot of the millions of dollars which flow from this industry to the Labor Party. It is the third example I cite today of major Labor Party donors getting regulatory favours from this government. They are regulatory favours which help these organisations evade scrutiny, transparency, disclosure and oversight. This is a political party, the Labor Party, which campaigned for office on being the most transparent government ever, on being an ethical government that was going to bring in a corruption commission. And yet in its first hundred days in office it has engaged in behaviour which I think is arguably corrupt. I share Senator McGrath's advocacy that perhaps this is something that a future corruption commission should examine when it is established because it is very hard to think of any other reason why the Labor Party would go to such lengths to expose itself to some political risk and some political damage in order to protect its friends except for the very significant financial donations that they receive. Senator Lambie made a good point in her contribution. She made a number of good points, but there is one in particular I want to highlight. She noted that the Albanese government aren't proceeding on this issue by way of legislation, at least not for now. They're doing so by regulation. It's no coincidence that in the case of letting their friends in the super funds off the hook they are also proceeding by regulation. In letting their friends in the litigation funding movement and the class action law firms off the hook, they are also proceeding by way of regulation. Regulation has an appropriate role in a Westminster system. Not everything needs to be specified in legislation. But it's generally regarded as a tool for less contentious areas of public policy, the rats and mice of public policy, the filling in the gaps of the legislative framework. But these are not rats and mice. These are not trivial things. These are three big substantive things. And yet this government does not have the courage of its convictions to bring forward legislation to deal with any of these three issues in testing the numbers in this chamber to see whether it can obtain 39 votes for these things and exposing itself to a full and proper debate, a debate that would involve referrals to Senate committees, public hearings and inquiries and examination of this issue. They want to do it quick, they want to do it dirty and they want to do it with minimal scrutiny because they know, ultimately, if exposed to the public it would not reflect very well on them. This is a new government. It is understandably riding high. The polls are strong. It's in a honeymoon period. But that will not last. Let me tell you: no government enjoys that level of public support forever. When the worm turns, as it inevitably will in a few years time, decisions like this will not stand the test of time. Decisions like this will look like a stain on the early record of this government. I really urge those opposite to consider. I know it's hard. I know you're members of the Labor Party. I know your caucus discipline and solidarity. But consider: is this what you entered public life to do? Did you run for office to provide regulatory favours to your political donors? If the Liberal and National parties did these things in government, you would be the first people to charge into this chamber and accuse us of corrupt conduct and corrupt behaviour. If you think it's bad if your political opponents do it, you should reflect on whether it's okay for you to do it as well. You should reflect on whether that is really the purpose for which you came to the federal parliament to represent your fellow Australians. 21:03 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution on this disallowance motion on the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. In coming after Senator Paterson's very good remarks, it is appropriate that I start off on this theme of vested interests. The reality is that there will always be vested interests. That will be the case in any organisation. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating was mentored by Jack Lang, who was a former Premier of New South Wales. I believe Mr Lang coined this expression: in the great race of life always back self-interest because at least you'll know it's trying. It is, I believe, a very true statement that conflicts are perhaps unavoidable, but it is the job of ministers to work to their oaths, to take their oaths seriously and to only pursue public policy initiatives which are genuinely in the public interest. It is true that the Labor Party won the election with a very threadbare agenda. They had some policies—some bad ones and some good ones, to be fair—but they had very few policies. So now, in these first 100 or so days, they have had to pull together, fashion together or thrash together a bit of an agenda for the next little while. They have been able to pick up the speed dial to their closest associates and say: 'What have you got in the top drawer? What are the issues we can work on that will make us look as if we're doing something? We need to do something now we're in this job.' It's like the dog that caught the car. Senator Paterson eloquently walked through a pretty good list of the vested interests which are ruling the roost here. There is no problem with having a summit and discussing policy issues. In some ways it's quite refreshing. But I'm not sure that the invitation list really reflects the modern economy we have. This particular issue of the ABCC is part of a pattern of behaviour that we have seen already across class action law firms and superannuation. The point about restraining vested interests and protecting against the concentration of power is very important in a democracy. It's very important that governments are not captured by vested interests. My own political party, or my own side of politics, has had a very mixed history with these issues over the long run. The predecessor party of the Liberal Party, the UAP—which I note has now been reborn in some sort of new capacity here in Canberra—was effectively destroyed because the vested interests which had been involved in the party's governance and had paid the party's bills then sought to set the policies of that party. That party was run into the ground, and Menzies set the party up in a way whereby policies were not going to be set by the people who paid the bills, because they had clear conflicts of interest in doing so. Unfortunately, the Labor Party is now where the original UAP was some 80 years ago. Their paymasters are setting the policies. That is a risk for the nation and it's also a risk for the Labor Party. On the issue of this particular measure, the case has been made very effectively by my colleagues that when you're looking at an economy of this magnitude, almost 10 per cent, when you're talking about a labour market component of 1.15 million, and when you're looking at unbundling an institution which has already proven its value by reducing labour costs, by increasing productivity and by effectively dealing with the cases that were brought to its front door, you have to ask yourself why you would want to do this. Of course, we know the answers. I won't bore the chamber with those answers again. They've been well and truly set out. It is, as I say, a pattern of behaviour. The ABCC has to go because the CFMMEU say it's not good for their operation. The regulation we put in place to ensure that all the superannuation funds would have to disclose the contributions they make to unions has to go because, again, the unions don't want to have that. The super funds certainly don't want to tell their members where they're sending their money. Equally, the class action lawyers don't want to lose money, because the way that it's established now means they can run the cases. It's very important that we have class actions. It's a very important way for people to be able to access justice. But the idea that these class action law firms would not be subject to regulation when they are running managed investment schemes, often on behalf of thousands of people, is ridiculous. The proposals that were before this parliament were simply that you can run a class action but you can't take all the money if you're the law firm. You've got to maintain a reasonable balance, and the bulk of the money that is won in a class action should go to the people for whom you're working. That is a reasonable proposition but apparently no good, because of course class action lawyers and donors don't like it. I do want to talk about this issue of where some of these things come together, because I think there is no question that the CFMMEU does have considerable power over the Labor Party. We have talked about the donations they make directly to the Labor Party, and we have also canvassed in these contributions this evening and earlier in the day the statement that Mr Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, made on Friday night when he made a regulation that removes the requirement for super funds to disclose their payments that they make to unions. All they have to do now is aggregate these payments. Mr Jones in his media statement he said that he was going to maintain the requirement for the super funds to disclose their political donations. That's very cute because anyone who has looked at this matter knows that the money is washed through the unions; it is not paid directly to the Labor Party itself. Doing that, effectively allowing the aggregation of the money from the funds into unions to be maintained, is giving a green light for the money to be supercharged. I do want to talk about the amount of money here that has been paid over the past few years. The CFMMEU is the number one recipient of all the unions out of the superannuation system, from super funds, over the last five years: in 2016-17 the CFMMEU received $750,000, in 2017-18 the CFMMEU received $1.4 million, in 2018-19 the CFMMEU received $3.5 million, in 2019-20 the CFMEU received $4.7 million and in 2020-21 the CFMMEU received $6.1 million. We've gone from $750,000 in 2016-17 to $6.1 million in 2020-21. Those are not Andrew Bragg's figures; those are the figures that were disclosed on the Australian Electoral Commission website. That is a very good example of where people's retirement savings, which are essentially managed for their benefit, are increasingly being filed into the coffers of the CFMMEU. That is a massive increase over the course of five years. You have to ask yourself how that can be justified. Under the regulations we made in the former parliament, all of those individual payments would have been disclosed to members. The members of these funds, by the way, are not going to trawl through the Australian Electoral Commission website. They're not going to pull together and sticky tape together pieces of paper that are filed by the various unions in their annual returns which show their income that is paid from other sources. Most people have better things to do than go through and do that, so the whole point of the member disclosures was to set it out in detail so people could see it if they wanted to. With the aggregation model that Mr Jones made through the regulation on Friday we will now not be able to see the individual payments made into the unions. The minister is free to make his regulation. That's his right under the act. He's been given those powers. Now the Senate will have to decide whether it will stand up for integrity and transparency and make a judgement about whether it thinks that people should be able to see the contributions being made by their super funds to other organisations and whether or not that is something that they want to finance. The same goes for this disallowance. The questions are: will the Senate be prepared to hold the line on an institution which has proven that it has been able to successfully consider cases; that it has been an effective cop on the beat; and that its abolition would result in a loss of productivity in our economy, a hit to GDP and a loss of 4,000 jobs? These are very clear questions that the Senate can consider in this disallowance on the ABCC. I'm sure that there will be an opportunity in the near term for this chamber to consider the matter on the super non-disclosure and the loss of transparency. But of course, this is all just a theme of a government that is seeking to work for vested interests. One would have hoped that the issues that really matter to the Australian people would have been the subject of this government's early initiatives. But sadly, the government is working through its top drawer of issues and vested interests, and these are the issues that are coming up now. Given that there's a pretty threadbare policy agenda, goodness knows what we'll be seeing 12 months from now. It may be more radical. I mean, I have to say, this is a pretty brazen agenda to try and run all these things through and to assume no-one will care, that the media won't be interested, that it is too technical and that it is too hard to understand. But my sense is that a lot of these things will be stopped because they are not in the public interest. People will not want to go back to their electorates and say, 'Yes, we allowed the ABCC to go because we didn't think it was important. Yes, we thought it wasn't important that you should know where your super funds are going. Yes, we thought it was a good idea to get rid of the class action regulation because we think that the class action lawyers should have more money than you when you win a case.' I mean, these are not the arguments that people will want to run in the retail environment. These may be impressive arguments to people who need to pay off debts to various vested interests but, at the end of the day, this chamber, surely, given it has great power vested in it, should be always looking to maintain the highest possible standards. Frankly, we would be doing the Labor government a favour by stopping this particular repeal, by not allowing them to proceed with their antitransparency measures in super and all the other things they want to do because, in the long run, as Senator Paterson, I think, pointed out as well, these are not things which will reflect well on the government in the long-term. In the long-term they will have to justify why they did this. The reality is that these are not the policy initiatives that are the most important things to the economy or to the Australian people. These are the list of issues that are important to a few vested interests that have a disproportionate amount of power over the government and over the governing political party. So I'll be voting on this disallowance to ensure that the ABCC can be maintained for the good governance of the construction industry. 21:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Having listened to some of this discussion over the course of the last several hours, I've been tempted to point a few things out. I might take the time to point a few things out without unnecessarily prolonging this obvious filibuster attempt. I can tell you that my history in the labour movement and my engagement with the construction industry says that there is a very important place for strong and effective trade union representation, whether you lot like it or not, in the construction industry. There is a history in the construction industry of mindful militancy, a focus on safety, a focus on the interests of members and a focus on good jobs in the construction industry. I used that phrase earlier because it's a phrase that I associate with the tradition in the organisation that I once worked in. While those on the other side might not have liked some of the things that we did and while, in fact, some on the other side worked hard to change industrial relations regulation to disadvantage workers in industrial relations, I was very proud indeed of that tradition. Some of the behaviour that has been set out by some quite eloquently in the allegations that have been made, if proven, is utterly unacceptable. The answer to that, of course, is not the continued operation of the ABCC. It is a failed hyperpartisan regulator. It does not have the confidence of participants in the building industry, and that is not limited to just the trade unions in the industry, although their voice in this is important. There is a broad view in the community that this regulator cannot be trusted to act in any other way but a hyperpartisan and unfair way and that it has failed. If its objective is, indeed, to prevent bad behaviour in the construction industry, it has utterly failed. The problem with the argument being made over there in the attempt to establish that there is some vested interest here is that there is no vested interest. There is just a clear and unambiguous view. It has not been hidden. It's not new. It was in the lead-up not just to the last election but the election before. This failed, hyperpartisan regulator is not fit for purpose in the construction industry. There are bad behaviours by industry participants in the construction industry. There are some workplaces in the construction industry that have a bad culture, and I would have thought that people would have paid attention to the Jobs and Skills Summit last week and seen that the answer to these problems is not a hyperpartisan, failed regulator—a police force that goes around telling people what stickers they can have on their helmets or what flags they can fly or whether or not they can meet. That's what this failed hyperpartisan regulator has done. Those over on that side don't have the faintest interest in productivity in the construction industry. It is just a continuation of the hyper-ideological obsessions of that group. What's really going on here this evening? This isn't a genuine debate about how to create good jobs in the construction industry. Nobody on that side has ever had the remotest interest in good jobs and productivity in the construction industry. This is a full-scale filibuster from an opposition who can't help but delay and divide and distract when it comes to climate policy. That's what all this is really about. Not only did the coalition's climate wars in government see total policy paralysis and political division for more than a decade but now they're clinging on to this sentiment and this strategy from opposition. Keep it coming, because people see it for what it is. The Liberal Party and the National Party in this place have spent hours of Senate time railing on the disallowance of the building work amendment code. So far we've heard from at least 10 coalition senators on this disallowance, all speaking for 15 minutes each. That's one opposition senator for every year of the wasted decade when it comes to climate in terms of failed climate policy and failed energy policy in this country. Why are they doing that? Perhaps it's because they don't want this Senate to debate a bill on climate emissions that would see Labor's 43 per cent emissions reduction target enshrined in law. The best that they've got is delay, and it's inherently partisan and self-interested and political. That's what this behaviour is really about. It's not in the public interest. It's to engage in an ideological obsession which still holds the majority in the Liberal Party, led by the fanatics on the backbench who are determined to drive what remains of Mr Dutton's leadership into the ground. The National Party and Mr Pitt are clearly still in control of the Leader of the Opposition's policy unit. This lot over here will never change. They don't listen to the Australian community. They didn't get the memo in the last election that people want to see action on climate change and to see Australians work together to resolve the issues that confront them, whether it's in the construction industry or anywhere else. They simply won't learn. I think we should have a vote on this matter. That's my view. We should get on with the business that this chamber needs to deal with over the course of this week, and in the interest of doing that, at the halfway mark, I'll sit down. 21:26 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I always enjoy a contribution from Senator Ayres with his misty eyed recollections of his time in the union movement. We've heard them many times in this chamber, and I suspected, when I saw him stand up tonight, that we were about to get one again. Indeed, we did. I'm glad, Senator Ayres, that you recognised in your contribution this evening that some bad behaviour has occurred. I'm glad that you again recognised that there are some bad cultural issues in some elements. I'm very pleased to hear you recognise that. But we had another government senator revert to the standard Labor talking points of blame shifting, while neglecting to address the very serious issue that we are examining here—the threat that Labor has proposed to the very existence of the body that can regulate that very same bad behaviour that Senator Ayres referred to—the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Here we are, into only the third sitting week of the Labor government, and we are already seeing Labor capitulating to the bidding of their union masters. Instead of concentrating on the issues affecting everyday Australians, like the cost-of-living pressures being felt by households around the country, Labor have focused their attention on appeasing their union mates. At a time when Australian families are doing it tough, this is what Labor are proposing as one of their bright new ideas. I've been listening to the contributions of other senators in this place this evening. I'm sure those good Australians listening to the contributions at home would be quite shocked at what they're hearing, although, it should be said that all the stories here this evening in relation to certain behaviour from the union movement aren't matters of public record. I remind those Australians listening at home that the ABCC was established for very good reasons. It was established to curtail union lawlessness, to protect construction workers from thuggish behaviour and intimidation and to stop the harassment of workers, particularly women, both on and off work sites. But, as we have heard here this evening, there are some truly terrible instances which paint a clear picture as to why this body, the ABCC, is essential to protect those who work in these industries from the sheer thuggery of some individuals in the Australian union movement. As many of my colleagues have said this evening, and I will make a couple of remarks on this myself, there is no greater example of that than the truly disgusting and despicable actions of the CFMMEU. As we've heard throughout this debate, CFMMEU officials have previously been caught out cursing at and spitting at individuals and threatening to gang rape and even kill women. A CFMMEU official was jailed for assault and once told a female inspector she was an 'F-ing S' and asked her if she had brought kneepads as she was going to be 'sucking off those F-ing dogs all day'. CFMMEU delegates were accused of harassing the daughter of a builder when they picketed a work site. The picketers were accused of harassing the daughter of the builder when she entered the site in her car by commenting on her appearance—her breasts and her bottom—and making inappropriate sounds towards her. They allegedly called her a 'daddy's girl' and a 'blonde bimbo', and they said: 'Here comes the freeloader, living off your dad. That car belongs to us because daddy pays for it.' These are truly horrific stories. This behaviour would not be tolerated in any workplace around this country. Taking all of this into consideration, I just do not understand how in the world the Labor Party think it is appropriate to abolish a body as important as the ABCC for keeping this sort of union thuggery and bullying in check, to ensure that it does not occur in Australian workplaces. The Labor Party don't want to listen to the cases of the many women who have been relentlessly harassed by the CFMMEU and don't even want to listen to the High Court of Australia, which ruled unanimously against that union in a case brought by the ABCC—the very body we're discussing here this evening—about the union's lawlessness in the construction sector. The High Court found in the 2022 Pattinson decision that the CFMMEU was a 'serial offender' that engaged in whatever action and made whatever threats it wished without regard to the law. It had contravened laws on approximately 150 occasions. The court said it was: … well-resourced, having more than sufficient means to pay any penalty the court might have been disposed to impose. And it treated penalties for serious breaches of the law as just the cost of 'doing business'. These are the people that the Australian Labor Party, this government, is prepared to defend and side with—the law-breakers and the thugs—over Australian construction workers and businesses. By promising to abolish the ABCC, they are condoning the CFMMEU's vile record of appalling treatment of women. Everyone deserves the right to go about their work in a safe environment. But the government seem to think that this doesn't apply to those working in our construction industry. It is an absolute shame. The ABCC is the last line of defence between a strong building sector and the chaos and the delays that are caused by a union-run Labor government. Since the ABCC was re-established by the coalition in December 2016, the commission has proved effective at tackling union excesses head-on. Our construction industry is a key component of Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. I note that we've had a few heckles from the other side of the chamber about the fact that, apparently, we on this side don't understand anything about the construction industry and don't support the construction industry. I find that very hard to believe after the very strong support that the former government provided to that very industry over the last term of government as we were dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. But, by promising to abolish the ABCC, Labor are putting that economic recovery at risk. For what? Why are they doing this? It's because they are beholden to their masters in the union movement, and heaven forbid the ABCC does its job effectively and holds unions to account for their atrocious behaviour. The CFMMEU, or its representatives, are respondents in 37 matters currently before the court. Almost $2 million in penalties in the current financial year have been awarded against the CFMMEU and its representatives. On the other hand, while the unions are running around racking up fines and disrupting workplaces, the ABCC has secured over $5 million in recovered wages and entitlements for construction workers since it was re-established in 2016—something that I would have thought those on the other side of the chamber would have been in strong support of—and have made over $13.4 million in progress claims for subcontractors since 2019. This body is doing good work. To those listening at home, you shouldn't believe the rhetoric from those on the other side. The ABCC is a good thing, and it just shows that it is an essential function for Australia's building and construction industry to combat union thuggery, end violence in the workplace, and work to recover the wages and entitlements of hardworking Australians. So, the question one must ask oneself is, why is this a priority for this Labor government? Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the CFMMEU was one of Labor's biggest financial donors in the financial year 2020-21, providing them with nearly $1 million in payments. And now here they are, the Labor government, pushing to abolish the ABCC—the very body that has tried to ensure that the CFMMEU ceases their lawless and thuggish behaviour on Australian worksites. This in no way passes the pub test. Does this government really think Australians will look at this move and see it as anything other than a politically motivated attack against the ABCC? The truth is plain for everybody to see, and it has been put very eloquently by my colleagues in contributing to this debate this evening. Clearly the Labor Party's allegiance is not to the Australian construction industry and not to the over 1.1 million Australian workers in that industry, who just want to go to work and do their job and come home, free from intimidation. No; their allegiance is to the CFMMEU and the donations they receive. I think we do need to consider here tonight what will happen to the construction industry in the absence of the ABCC. We've talked a lot about some of the behaviour they've cracked down on. If we don't have this body, what is going to happen on Australian worksites? When there is no watchdog, industrial laws and penalties in this industry are seen as no more serious than a parking ticket: you speed, you pay the fine and the offending conduct is repeated again and again. But of course, in this example, we're not talking about speeding; we're talking about workplace intimidation, harassment of workers, particularly harassment of women, as I just described. The federal government—any federal government, of any political persuasion—has a responsibility to ensure that our laws are strong enough to deter people from breaking the law and that there is an effective regulator in place to prosecute wrongdoers when they act unlawfully. When laws are repeatedly flouted and are not acting as a deterrent, it is clear that those laws must be strengthened. When there is an effective regulator who enforces laws with meaningful penalties, people will think twice before breaking the law. As soon as Labor abolished the ABCC in 2012, the improvements in respect for the law were lost almost immediately. After that abolition, the rate of disputes in the construction industry rose to approximately four times the all-industries average. In the first quarter, after the abolition of the ABCC, the rate of industrial disputes had increased fivefold. And here we are, yet again, in 2022, with a newly elected Labor government, and one of their first priorities is to trash this body that was created to protect Australian workers from the coercive controls of the militant union movement. So, after all that and after numerous speakers—in this place tonight and previously on this motion when it was before the Senate back in August—have raised deep concerns about the government's move to abolish the ABCC, about how this will adversely affect workers and how this will embolden militant unionism on construction sites around Australia, I certainly hope the government will be prepared to do the brave thing and perhaps think twice about supporting the CFMMEU and their union mates ahead of hardworking Australians. My hopes aren't high, but I certainly do have them, because if they don't, if they side against the ABCC and with the CFMMEU, the Labor Party are condoning that union's abysmal record in the treatment of workers and particularly the treatment of women. And that is an absolute outrage. They are prepared to defend and side with law-breakers and thugs over Australian construction workers and businesses because it is in their financial and political interests to do so. It is plain for all to see. This is a party and this is a government that talked a lot about integrity over the last few months during the election campaign and talked a lot about transparency. I'm not entirely sure how those opposite on the government benches can talk about integrity on the one hand and, in exactly the same breath almost, in their first few weeks of government in this country, instead be talking about siding with their union mates and abolishing the very body that has sought to make those unions better and to make Australian worksites safer. It is just a disgrace. 21:41 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Well, if ever we knew the risks and dangers of electing Labor, this is it. This simply is a dirty deal. The abolition of the ABCC is the price Australians will pay for electing Labor and, might I say, one of the many prices they will pay. This proposal is a dirty, rotten deal with a dirty, rotten union, the CFMMEU. I'm not referring to the members, many of whom are hard working. I'm referring to the union bosses. We've heard many excellent contributions from coalition senators this evening about the unlawfulness wreaked on building sites across this country by the CFMMEU, the hundreds upon hundreds of breaches of the law and the intimidatory treatment to which so many are subjected by the CFMMEU bosses, including, of course, the disgraceful stories we've heard about the treatment of women. In my brief remarks I want to particularly pick up on the comments of Senator Ayres, and I'm pleased that Senator Ayres has acknowledged the many instances of unlawful behaviour by construction unions. However, in saying that the ABCC is a failed regulator, Senator Ayres is completely and utterly wrong. That's absolutely false. I want to refer to an excellent opinion piece by Denita Wawn in the Australian Financial Review. She is the chief executive officer of Master Builders Australia, and she reflects on a time when former Labor prime ministers Hawke, Rudd and Gillard stood up to militant construction unions. This marks a very, very dark day for the labour movement led by the most left-wing Prime Minister in living memory. The likes of Bob Hawke, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd had the guts to stand up to militant unions like the CFMMEU, and, in fact, the then industrial relations minister back in 2008, Julia Gillard, commissioned the late Murray Wilcox to conduct an inquiry into the need for a specialist construction industry regulator. In his report Wilcox concluded that the work of the ABCC was not yet done. I want to briefly put on record that it is quite false to assert that this regulator has failed. This regulator has done a very important job, and as Denita Wawn writes: It is disingenuous in the extreme for people who know better to assert that the primary focus of the ABCC has been to stop construction unions flying their flags from the top of cranes. Since it was re-established in 2016, the ABCC has brought more than 100 cases to court, and only one involved the display of construction union motifs. Overall— as a result of the work of the ABCC— the courts have found more 2500 breaches of the law by construction unions which resulted in more than $16.5 million in fines. The courts have found there to have been: Unlawful industrial action: more than 1400 breaches resulting from more than 20 cases, leading to $3.6 million in fines. Coercion: more than 470 breaches resulting from more than 32 cases, leading to $5.9 million in fines. Right of entry: more than 300 breaches resulting from 40 cases, leading to $4.2 million in fines. Freedom of association: more than 120 breaches resulting from 15 cases, leading to $900,000 in fines. Unlawful picketing: more than 20 breaches resulting from 4 cases, leading to $1.03 million in fines. Misrepresentation: almost 30 breaches resulting from 6 cases, leading to $380,000 in fines. So this regulator has done a very good job at maintaining the law, at regulating the militant unions and, of course, in ensuring that our construction sector thrives. Shame on the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, shame on Labor senators opposite and shame on the labour movement for not having the same courage that former Prime Minister Bob Hawke had, that former Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard had to stand up to the very worst elements of militant unions. The Labor Party have done a rotten, dirty deal. This is our fifth-largest industry which employs more than 1.1 million workers and Labor are happy to wind the clock back decades and put all of that at risk. And, yes, they got their dividend: $16.3 million in donations. The unions now have the Labor Party on the hook to abolish the ABCC. This is an utter disgrace. Thank you very much. 21:47 Senator D 263418 Tasmania UNIAM (—) (): Like my colleagues, this is a great opportunity to make a contribution on what is an important debate. It's one that I think we need to boil back to the basics rather than heading off into some of the tangents that some of those opposite have done in the contributions they've made so far. At the end of the day the ABCC had one job, and that was to protect those in the industry who wanted to lawfully and safely go about their work. That is something that we are all for. In fact, safe workplaces result in greater productivity, something that is great for the people of Australia and for this economy, which has been through such a tough time over the last couple of years especially. When we talk about the construction sector—1.1 million Australians work in it; we have 400,000 registered small businesses operating in this sector—we need to make sure we have every measure in place to ensure the protection of those who participate in this sector. With it being a vitally important part of the economy, in built-up areas and larger population centres, but also in regional communities, we need to make sure we have every protection in place for those who are part of that sector. We have to look at the motivation behind the disempowerment of the ABCC. What is motivating the government to strip out the powers of this organisation, which really does have just one thing in mind—that is, the protection of workers, those who lawfully want to get about their business, do their job to the best of their ability without the undue influence of those who seek to interfere. What is behind the ALP's motivations to bring in the measures that they have, the measures we are seeking to disallow today? I think it's worth hovering on that for quite some time, as my colleagues also have. A range of issues have been raised that I'd love to ventilate in the time available to me, which I'm sure will run out tonight but we'll pick up again at another time. But what is most disturbing about this debate is the minimisation of what the CFMMEU did, what the ABCC took issue with and what the former government particularly focused on. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 114 ADJOURNMENT Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards 114 21:50 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Teachers change lives. We often hear it, but I have always believed it. In July this year a teacher from Montello Primary School in Burnie on the north-west coast of Tasmania received the honour of being named as one of 12 Schools Plus teaching fellows at the 2022 Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards in Sydney. Daniel Edwards, an inspiring teacher from Montello Primary School in Burnie, has transitioned from a general classroom teacher to become a STEM specialist teacher. He has led a transformation in science and STEM education for students at Montello Primary School. Montello Primary School is in a low socioeconomic area with high unemployment, and Daniel's passion has helped to generate a cultural shift in the students' engagement and achievements at Montello school. He is their first STEM specialist teacher and has helped develop the school's make a space room to provide new opportunities for students to engage in STEM activities. He has since coached teams from the school to the finals of prestigious state, national and even international STEM challenges, including the top three Tasmanian teams in the Australian techgirls competition. And another student from the school, Indiana Wells, is an Asia-Pacific winner of the Microbit Foundation's do your :bit challenge. These successes have generated widespread acclaim and driven a new interest in STEM learning throughout Montello Primary School and wider community. With Daniel's leadership, the school has received awards for greater participation and overall commitment to the Tasmanian Science Talent Search STEM challenge and the TSTS competitions. One outstanding feature of Daniel's impact is his collaboration and sharing of knowledge with other schools. He has hosted STEM expos, volunteered as a judge for the national STEM video game challenge and international MakeX Spark robotics competition, and presented on best practices in STEM education at state and national conferences. His impact on education has been recognised by the 2021 Tasmanian STEM Primary Teacher of the Year award and selection as the 2022 Tasmanian finalist for the BHP Science and Engineering Teacher Awards. Daniel said he felt he was on cloud nine after the Commonwealth Bank teaching awards and the opportunity to celebrate with a group of 12 incredible newly named teaching fellows—10 early career teachers who also received awards—as a privilege. Indeed, he describes the energy and passion across the room at the awards as inspirational. This award also gave Daniel the opportunity to meet many highly esteemed and inspiring educators from all around the country over the three days in Sydney. Genuine connections and relationships were formed, and Daniel plans to continue working alongside others on some great ideas for projects, potential collaborations and visits to each other's schools. In his own words, Daniel says, 'I am so proud to be part of this team and I am so excited about all of the great and innovative things we can continue to achieve for our students. Thank you also to all of the staff, students and wider community of Montello Primary School. There is not a place in the world I would rather be or any other job I would rather be doing. We are well and truly living up to our motto, 'making people shine'. Every single day, students and staff at Montello are achieving incredible things, and I couldn't possibly be any prouder to be playing a small part in that. I am so inspired, challenged and encouraged with the knowledge that this fellowship will enable so many opportunities for our students beyond what even I can comprehend.' I want to take this opportunity to thank Daniel Edwards, as well as the amazing team at Montello primary and the broader community of Burnie for embracing STEM, for all the good work nurturing the minds of the children, who will help lead North West Tasmania in years to come. Congratulations to Daniel and congratulations to Montello Primary School. Cybersafety 115 21:55 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria In my capacity as shadow minister for communications, I have been very proud to speak about the incredible work of the previous coalition government in protecting the online safety of all Australians. We have a very, very proud record. When we were in government we passed the Online Safety Act and established the world's first eSafety Commissioner. We forced social media companies to remove cyberbullying, cyberabuse and image based abuse. We stood up for children who had been bullied online. As we know, some of those cases resulted in absolute tragedy. We led global action to make social media accounts more accountable over terrorist and violent content online. We committed to introducing new laws to unmask anonymous trolls, which, very regrettably, were opposed by Labor. We implemented the news media bargaining code to force the big-tech platforms to pay for Australian media content—another world-leading reform. Following the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data-harvesting scandal, and in recognition of the new challenges to the protection of individuals' privacy in the individual age, in 2019 the coalition committed to strengthening privacy protections by introducing a binding code of practice for social media and other online platforms. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission July 2019 report Digital platforms inquiry reinforced the importance of the then government's commitment to developing a privacy code for digital platforms and to enhancing penalties and enforcement measures. Prior to the election we announced the coalition's Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Online Privacy and Other Measures) Bill 2021, the online privacy bill, which proposed that social media and other online platforms would be required to take all reasonable steps to verify their users' age and to consider the best interest of the child when handling the personal information of children, including obtaining parental consent for users under the age of 16. It also provided that there would be fully informed consent in relation to the use of personal information and that social media platforms would be required to cease using or disclosing personal information upon request. We put Australians front and centre in that bill. The bill also proposed tougher penalties and enforcement powers, including penalties of up to $10 million for companies which engaged in serious and repeated interferences with privacy. It is very regrettable that we have seen very little from Labor on online safety and online privacy. In fact, the Labor Minister for Communications, Ms Rowland, has barely mentioned online safety. The Albanese government is to be condemned for its failure to strengthen online privacy and data protection laws. The shadow Attorney-General, Julian Leeser, and I called for the Albanese government to adopt the coalition's online privacy bill back in July, and we have heard nothing but silence. Today, I was pleased to join Senator Paterson, the shadow minister for cybersecurity and for countering foreign interference, along with Mr Leeser in calling on the Albanese government to take action. We have revealed today that a WeChat account owner has been asked to transfer their data to WeChat servers on China's mainland. This account owner received a notice requesting authorisation to enable WeChat services which would result in personal information, likes, comments, views, search queries and the like being uploaded by WeChat servers in China's mainland for the sole purpose of providing this particular service. So we have very real concerns and increasing concerns about online safety, online privacy and online security. These issues are extremely concerning. In fact in July Senator Paterson also wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security, urging the government to consider all options to protect Australian users on high-risk platforms like TikTok. The Minister for Home Affairs has announced a review into data security issues including data harvesting involving TikTok, WeChat and other digital platforms, but where is the government on taking immediate action to enhance the privacy of Australians online? The communications minister said nothing about this; she has completely vacated the field. While all regulatory options must be on the table, as the opposition has made clear, there are vital improvements to online privacy which can and must be enacted immediately. We respect the fact that the Home Affairs department is conducting its review. We are concerned that this is going to take such a long time and there will be no outcome of the review until early next year, but there is a tranche of legislation ready to go. The privacy and safety of Australians online is critical. We know there will apps like TikTok which are data harvesting, tracking young Australians and capturing a whole lot of information which is in fact not necessary for the app to function as it should. At the very least, we should be seeing action from the Albanese government in relation to children, so one of the provisions of the coalition's online privacy bill was to require parental consent for any person under the age of 16 who signs up to an app. This is all about putting the best interests of children first. This bill also provided for very tough penalties of up to $10 million. I say to the Albanese government: please have a look at this bill, please consider that this is a critical issue. This is a rapidly changing landscape, and it's incredibly disappointing that we have seen no action from the government in relation to this very, very important issue. It is, regrettably, consistent with a lack of action we've seen on a number of other fronts in the communications portfolio, including on regional connectivity. Before the election, through a fabulous program, the Regional Connectivity Program, a proud coalition program, we announced 93 projects, spending $140 million to invest in improved regional connectivity in rural and regional communities around this country. We have been waiting more than three months and we have seen no action from the minister apart from saying in an interview with The Guardian that she intends to deliver the Regional Connectivity Program, but it was only after I called her to account that she confirmed that round 2 would be delivered. We do not know whether these 93 projects have been confirmed by the government. Nothing has been said. Nothing has been done. These projects are sitting there on ice. Unfortunately there are is a very similar story with the Peri-Urban Mobile Program. It was only after pressure imposed by great local members like the member for Casey when I visited him and talked about the Peri-Urban Mobile Program that the government announced it would commit $28.2 million to that program. But Labor went to the election with a $155 million cut to regional communications, $155 million less than the coalition's commitment. There's $140 million sitting in the budget. Projects have been announced and yet we've seen no action. So whether it's on regional connectivity, whether it's on privacy, whether it's on online safety and whether it's caring for our kids we need to see immediate action from this government. Jobs and Skills Summit 116 22:05 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Last week I attended the Jobs and Skills Summit here in this building. It occurred at a critical moment in our history in terms of the state of our economy and our labour market. We're in a circumstance where wages have stalled and we've had 10 years without an increase in real wages. We have a broken system of enterprise bargaining. As academics at the summit pointed out, only 11 per cent of Australian workers in the private sector are now covered by enterprise agreements. We have got a gender pay gap that's too wide—unacceptably stuck at the level it has been at now for some decades—and we haven't narrowed it in recent years, despite women's increase in participation in education. They're coming out of universities with more degrees but we're not seeing an improvement in their pay. We've seen a massive shift in corporate power, reflected in the very high levels of profit as a share of GDP, while the wages share is at an all time low. We face a crisis of inequality. There are too many kids left behind. We face a widening gap in salaries, as top executives pull away with big pay rises and ordinary Australians are stalled on falling real incomes. We face a crisis in inequality, with too many kids in households where there isn't enough food in the fridge. There are too many people living in poverty. Amongst many of the working poor there is insecurity of jobs, insecurity of hours and insecurity of shifts. And there are too many Australians trying to live on income support at the level of $46 a day in a country that is amongst the wealthiest on the planet. We have a cost-of-living crisis underway, with prices outpacing wages growth, and so many people under pressure trying to meet housing costs; rising rent; and runaway transport, food, health and childcare costs. In my own office, in Adelaide, issues around rent and housing costs are amongst the most common that we hearing at present. At the same time, we have a crisis underway in our education system for many people, with our kids coming out of universities with a level of debt now at an average of $24,000 and others struggling to find their way through a complex VET system, which also costs them a lot and results in very low rates of course completion for too many Australians. These outcomes are not random. They are not natural. They arise from public policy decisions. They can be traced right back to John Howard in 1996 and subsequent governments who have taken policy decisions that have resulted in widening inequality, leaving too many Australians behind. We know that we can change these outcomes with different policies, and that's the challenge that was really at the front and fore of the summit in last week's conversations. It was a national conversation that this building hasn't seen for over a decade. We've much more commonly witnessed conversations of corporate triumph and widening inequality. The summit pulled some very unexpected voices into the room. For example, people who are living with disability, who had many things to say about how they're treated in the workplace, how difficult it is to find your way into existing cultures in too many of our enterprises; young people and immigrants subject to discrimination and wage theft, and the challenge they're finding trying to get justice to recover lost wages, often facing appalling treatment. The summit also witnessed the need to ensure that those who come to work here from overseas get access to full citizenship and permanency. Stories were heard of those living on income support struggling to put together a life of care for themselves and their loved ones. There was an important and extended conversation about the situation of women—their low rates of labour participation; the double day so many face with an unpaid care load on top of a job; and the absence of a quality, affordable early education and childcare system, and alongside it a very poor level of paid parental leave and the price this creates not only for women and for children but for households and for our economy. Of course, the value of the summit lies not so much in its conversations but in what it achieves and the action that results. Women made up the first panel in the summit, and the picture was grim. We've seen a big increase in the share of the services sector of our economy and in the care economy, and a decline in agriculture and manufacturing, but without rewards flowing fairly to women. We particularly saw repetitive conversations over the period of the summit on two issues that are incredibly important to the growing numbers of women who are holding down jobs in Australian society. The first issue was early childhood education and care. It was perhaps the most commonly mentioned issue by a wide range of participants, the need to invest more heavily in the care of our kids to make access to child care more affordable, to confront the childcare deserts which are peppered across our country and to lift the pay of workers in the childcare sector and draw more people into a sector which is struggling to hang on to, let alone recruit, the growing number of carers and skilled workers that that sector requires. The absence of investing properly in this part of our economy and our society is resulting in much lower rates of participation of women, relative to similar OECD countries, and a big cost to our GDP and our country. Most importantly, it's affecting the quality of life and the long-term life chances of many of our kids. So, we have a big agenda in front of us on child care, and we really should be turning our attention much more aggressively and assertively towards policy that addresses this issue. The second really important question that was frequently discussed at the summit was the question of paid parental leave, the way in which we look after families and especially new parents and mothers at the moment of birth. I was lucky enough to work with Senator Natasha Stott Despoja in 2001, when she brought to this Senate a private member's bill to establish the first paid parental leave scheme. Ten years after that private member's bill Australia finally entered the developed world and gave new parents, mothers, a paid rest after the birth of a child. Ten years later we find ourselves once again at the bottom of the international rankings in terms of the amount of paid parental leave we give to new parents. We know from a very big and growing body of literature about the consequences of not properly looking after kids when their parents are working at the time that children are born. It has a big effect on their cognitive capability later in life, and researchers in the US and internationally have shown that a dollar spent on providing leave, for example, for a mother and quality child care at the time of a child's birth will result in a saving of $7 later in that child's life. This is one of the most important and lucrative investments we can make as a community. We are failing to make those investments now and we're paying a price, especially women, in terms of access to economic opportunities, but also our economy, in terms of outcomes for our children. The summit spent a lot of time looking at the circumstances and situations of women, and it created a very powerful argument for both investment in early childhood education and care and in paid parental leave. Very disappointingly, in the outcomes of the summit, which are many—and many of them are very laudable and deal with a wide range of issues—they did not go to the questions of early childhood education and care or growing our paid parental leave system. The real test for the summit outcomes for many women and families and households lies in giving relief from cost-of-living pressures through free child care, which is something our country can afford right now in terms of the stage 3 tax cuts which could be so easily turned to these kinds of investments. That would make such a difference to the lives of women and our economy into the future. Thinking about the summit and its outcomes, it was a very important and valuable period of discussion. But the real test lies in whether we're able to make advances on some of the most discussed issues at the summit and issues for many women in the room. They made up half the delegates in this conference, a big contrast with the 1983 Hawke and Keating summit where only one of the 93 delegates was a woman. Women were there, they were heard, they spoke up. The test is: will we see action on some really important areas of change and will we see the investment of the stage 3 tax cuts in these kinds of provisions that will make such a difference for women and really address gender inequality? We can contrast positive outcomes for women from better childcare outcomes and paid parental leave with the fact that those stage 3 tax cuts will deliver $2 to men for every $1 they give to women. So there are lot of challenges there for us. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope we're going to see much stronger action in coming budgets for the women of Australia. De Bellis, Cavaliere Giovanni Battista, OAM 118 22:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Tonight, on behalf of former senator Fierravanti-Wells, I pay tribute to a great figure within the Australian-Italian community, Cavaliere Giovanni Battista De Bellis OAM. Mr De Bellis lost his short battle with cancer late last year after a life devoted to his family, his work and his community. Former senator Fierravanti-Wells prepared this speech. Any errors are, of course, just in my delivery. She wanted me to acknowledge, in particular, De Bellis's children, Nick, Mary, Frank and Gianni; the president of the Co.As.It board, Lorenzo Fazzini; and the general manager, Thomas Camporeale; as well as Mr De Bellis's numerous friends and colleagues. Mr De Bellis was born on 22 July 1938 in the town of Acquaviva delle Fonti in the province of Bari, Italy. Like many Italian migrants, he lived through World War II and experienced famine and hardship. Those early experiences taught him to value community, relationships and family. Quite unusually for the time, Mr De Bellis went on to graduate from technical college, having attained an accounting diploma in 1959. In May 1961 he followed one of his brothers who had already made the decision to come to Australia. Although Mr De Bellis came to Australia with what he described as school English, he found it hard to make any sense of the Australian accent. He moved from job to job after initially settling in Marrickville in Sydney. In his second year, he commenced work with Sabemo, the building arm of the Transfield group of companies. He spent 34 years with that company, as accountant, group administration manager and, ultimately, group financial controller. He retained that role until his retirement in 1996. In the early 1960s, Mr De Bellis, like many other young Italian migrants, would spend his Saturday nights at the Trocadero in Sydney or the town hall events at both Marrickville and Petersham. It was at the Italo-Australia Club in George Street that he first met the love of his life, Giustina, in 1962. He asked her to dance and, with the approval of her brother, she agreed. Before long a relationship blossomed, and they married the following year. Mr De Bellis's devotion to Giustina was immense. They frequently attended Co.As.It events, including the gala balls. Elegantly attired, they were the envy of all on the dance floor with their dancing prowess. Sadly, Giustina suffered a brain aneurysm in 2001. Mr De Bellis devoted himself to her care, cooking, cleaning, feeding and supporting her in every way. She would sometimes get confused or agitated, and he had a way of calming her, sometimes with just a smile, at other times with a reassuring comment. They were inseparable, even as her cognition declined. He spoke about her with such fondness—about her mothering, her care for the family and her strength of character. He prioritised Giustina's needs and care above all else, and for a long time managed without any support at all. Ultimately, he allowed Co.As.It to bring in some care, first for Giustina and later for himself as well. Despite his best efforts to visit her in aged care, COVID restrictions made that almost impossible for a large part of 2020 and 2021. This really affected him very deeply. His cancer diagnosis in October 2021 was a shock to everyone except Mr De Bellis himself. He rarely spoke about his prognosis. He just wanted to be at home, relaxing in his favourite armchair or smoking on his balcony like he always did. Despite a brief admission to hospital, he got his wish. If Mr De Bellis's first love was Giustina, former senator Fierravanti-Wells says that his second love was Co.As.It, the peak Italian community organisation in New South Wales. Established in 1968 by the Italian Consul-General of the day, it has grown to lead the provision of care to people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Initially founded to maintain the Italian language for the children of migrants, Co.As.It. soon began providing immigration funded settlement services and community events. It's now a major provider of home care packages, Commonwealth home support services, mental health services, drug and alcohol services, problem gambling services, as well as youth and family services. With a staff of 230, 7,000 students and over 2,000 clients, Co.As.It. is a highly regarded entity in New South Wales indeed. Mr De Bellis got involved with Co.As.It. in the early to mid 1970s. By 1978 he joined the board and served as its treasurer from 1983 until 2020, when he took on the role of assistant treasurer, and he was convener of the education subcommittee until it was disbanded in 2004. As convener he fought for maintenance of Italian language education programs in the primary school system in New South Wales. It is in large part thanks to his commitment that Italian is so widely taught in schools in New South Wales. He served as a director of Co.As.It. for almost 50 years, as education subcommittee convener for 30 years, and as treasurer for 37 years—an immense commitment to public service and volunteer organisation indeed. His skills as an accountant ensured the financial stability and longevity of the company, but his business acumen ensured its continued growth and success. He was involved in every key decision the organisation made in almost 50 years, and it is a mainstay in New South Wales, particularly in Leichhardt in Sydney. He was involved in many key milestones, including the negotiations for the purchase of Casa d'Italia in Leichhardt, the establishment of the Italian Bilingual School and the purchase of the cultural centre at the Italian Forum—all of these, of course, in the Prime Minister's very own set of Grayndler. In an interview in April 2018, Mr De Bellis was asked why he maintained his involvement with Co.As.It. for so many years. He answered by saying that he valued the maintenance of language and culture and the care of our older community. He said: 'There's got to be a passion; I wouldn't do it otherwise. In the early days I had a wife and four children at home. I would work all day and then go to a meeting at Co.As.It. and get home at 11 o'clock or midnight.' If that's not passion, I don't know what is. For all of his efforts, Mr De Bellis was awarded the Order of Australian Medal in 2012, and the Order of Cavaliere by the president of the Italian Republic in 2019. Four days before his death, Mr De Bellis received a Co.As.It medal for his extraordinary contributions to that organisation and to the broader Italian-Australian community. He attended the end-of-year function with pride and received a medal that meant so much to him and that he was involved in establishing three decades earlier. Just a few weeks later, that medal sat on his coffin as an acknowledgement that Co.As.It stands so tall in large part because of Mr De Bellis and his family's contribution to the organisation. Connie wanted me to acknowledge all of the Co.As.It staff involved in De Bellis's care but especially his case manager, Alessandra, and his care workers, Anesta and Simona. How does one sum up the legacy of such a generous and compassionate man who gave so selflessly of himself to the Italian-Australian community and to the Australian community at large? I know I speak not just for former senator Fierravanti-Wells but for many in the community and at Co.As.It who will continue his legacy by following the example of care and support he showed to his organisation and his family and that he taught others to show. This legacy lives on in the care for the organisation, the care for the community and the success of the Italian-Australian community. Vale Giovanni De Bellis. Senate adjourned at 22:24