2022-10-26 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 26 October 2022

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021 1

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, introduced by the Greens, a bill that we are incredibly proud of, standing up and fighting for the survival of one of our most iconic animals and part of our most beautiful nature here in Australia. Our iconic koala, much loved around the globe, could soon be extinct in the wild. Just last week we saw the Prime Minister of Japan cuddling a koala in a zoo here in Australia. Without urgent action, sadly, zoos will be the only home where koalas will be seen. WWF has recently released the Living Planet Report 2022, which was a damning indictment when it comes to extinction. It found global wildlife populations fell by 69 per cent on average between 1970 and 2018. We are indeed facing an extinction crisis. And, shamefully, Australia continues to have the most mammal extinctions in the world. This is a record we should not be proud of. The report details a disturbing story of continual decline of more than 1,100 wildlife populations in Australia due to the pressures of climate change, habitat destruction and introduced predators. When it comes to koala populations it found they've plummeted in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT. We know all too well that the koala is much loved and needs to be saved. The report found that globally land use change is still the biggest threat to nature, destroying or fragmenting the natural habitats of many plant and animal species on land, in fresh water and in our oceans. I couldn't stand here without acknowledging just how devastating it is that we continue to have native forest logging in this country. This report clearly stated that if we cannot limit global warming to 1.5 degrees climate change will likely become the dominant cause of biodiversity loss in coming decades. The irony in this is that, in order to stop dangerous climate change, we need more biodiversity than ever before. We don't just need to stop destroying nature; we need to start restoring nature. The Greens have also got a bill for a climate trigger, which would require polluting projects to be assessed for their emissions and their impact on the climate. It would be another vital reform for our environment laws if we are to make them fit for the crises that we are facing. At home here in Australia, we know from our own Australia state of the environment report published in July that the overall state of our environment in Australia is poor and deteriorating. It is the result of increasing pressures from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction. If urgent action is not taken to address these pressures and threats then the koala and many other precious wildlife species will be pushed to the brink of extinction. This bill goes a long way towards stopping habitat loss, whether that loss is due to a new coalmine, gas mine, big property development, cement mine, new road or some other type of project. So long as that proposal is on critical koala habitat, I put to you that it should not go ahead. This is the type of action we need to reverse biodiversity loss and secure a nature-positive world. Earlier this year, the koala was officially listed as 'endangered'. This uplisting may sound like a positive thing, but it is a devastating mark. It means that, within a decade, koalas have gone from not being listed as 'threatened' at all to being 'vulnerable' and now 'endangered', facing extinction within the next three decades. It's not really a coincidence that this trend has happened at the same time as we've had a decade-long government who did nothing to protect the environment and who, in fact, put their foot on the pedal to environmental destruction. The environment-wrecking Liberal and National parties were in power for that exact amount of time. Of course, we know their attitude towards the koala. All you need to do is listen to the debates coming out of the New South Wales parliament to know these members do not care about the significance of the extinction of the koala. I hope that the Labor Party will be different. I hope that this government can turn the tide. I hope that together in this place we can see that, if we cannot save the koala, we have no hope of turning around the trend of environmental destruction. It was during the Liberal and National parties' reign that I first introduced this bill, but, with the pressures of the mining corporations, their donor lobbyists and their property developer mates, they were never going to stop the destruction of critical koala habitat. I hope Minister Plibersek will be better. Minister Plibersek has announced an objective to stop extinction; well, here is an opportunity to do just that. We can't just talk about saving our koala and about saving our wildlife. There's no point just having a target for extinction unless you are going to stop ruining and wrecking the very homes of these vulnerable animals. The single most important thing for halting the extinction of the koala is to stop destroying koalas' homes. Stop destroying their habitat. There are a number of proposals right now on the desk of the minister from companies—whether it's BHP or it's property developers—who are asking her to sign off on the destruction of critical koala habitat. The BHP proposal for the Peak Downs coalmine expansion beggars belief: BHP want to expand their coalmine right into critical koala habitat. This proposal sits on the desk of the minister today. If the minister agrees to and signs off on this proposal—if she gives it the green light—she is condemning koalas to extinction. So stand strong, stand up for the koala, stand up for your convictions and ensure that big companies like BHP cannot continue to make profits off the destruction of koala homes. Then there's the Mount Pleasant coalmine expansion in the Upper Hunter region that would cause almost one billion tons of carbon emissions and which is also right smack bang in critical habitat. There are other projects like massive housing developments near Campbelltown, threatening Greater Sydney's only disease-free growing koala population. There are more and more threats on koala habitat. And where is the minister in this? Of course, there are many projects on the minister's desk, where big companies are asking her to greenlight their projects at the cost of the survival of our native species. And it's not just about the koala, of course. We know the impacts of the MMG tailings dam in the World Heritage Tarkine and the impact that's going to have on the native species there, particularly the masked owl. There are so many projects where this minister can actively step in now and stop in order to save and reverse the extinction of our wildlife. The reason this is so important is because we know our environment is in crisis. The state of our environment is at its worst point in time, ever. We have to turn the trend around. One project might not seem so much, but when you add all of these up what we see is a devastating tsunami of threatened species, endangered species and extinction. And once these animals are gone for good, they are gone. They are not coming back. It is an international shame that right here, right now, the Australian koala is on the endangered list, and yet there are still corporations wanting to destroy their homes. This legislation would stop that from happening. This legislation would put a moratorium on the destruction of critical koala habitat, to give the koala the opportunity to survive. This isn't about being antidevelopment; this is about making sure these projects are done in the right places not the wrong places. And when you are facing a world where the koala may be extinct within the next few decades you must make the right choices. Allowing a coal expansion, or a big development or a cement mine to happen smack bang in the middle of koala habitat is the wrong choice. I hope that this government have a bit more guts than the previous one. I hope that this government fulfils their promise to the Australian people that they will care more about the environment than the last mob. But we need to see this action in full. It's not good enough just to talk about the koala or have your nice cuddly photo. You actually have to stop the destruction of their homes, and the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, have the power to save the koala today. A moratorium on protecting critical koala habitat would save not just the koala but many, many other species that live within that environmental pocket. As we face the dual crisis of climate change and extinction and biodiversity loss we must be smarter about how we manage these issues. We need to make sure that the extinction crisis is considered as seriously as the climate crisis, because if it is not we will lose the koala and many of our other Australian native wildlife species for good. And it's not just about the impact that that has on us as a community, and the global and international shame: it is the biodiversity loss that we will all suffer from. If we want to deal with the climate crisis that confronts us and to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees—two degrees at the very least—we need to change the way we engage with our natural world. We know the destructive effects that climate change is already having. We can see them and feel them—floods, fires, more floods, extreme weather. The climate has changed. It's here. It's already threatening our homes, our livelihoods, our jobs. One of the major and urgent things that need to happen is the protection and restoration of nature, because biodiversity is an essential part of our toolkit for combatting the climate crisis. Why on earth would any minister, in 2022, allow the destruction of koala habitat, knowing that our koala faces extinction, that our biodiversity is needed more than ever and that nature is crying out for help? I look forward to hearing the other contributions on this bill, because this is an important debate. It is about choice, about trade-offs and about prioritisation. I don't think for one second that BHP's expansion of a coalmine should be given a higher priority than saving the koala's critical habitat at this point in time. It is not the right place to do it. For far too long corporations and governments have done deals that have traded off our wildlife, that have offset their homes. And over and over again we've seen these offsets to be absolute shams and rorts, bordering on corruption. All you need to do is look at the Auditor-General's report tabled in the New South Wales parliament to see that the koala has been undersold too many times. It's time to save the koala. 09:17 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this important matter before the Senate. As Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, I've had the chance to see the important work that the Albanese Labor government is doing in delivering protection for Australia's unique landscape and environment. It has been a pleasure to work with the new Minister for the Environment and Water. Despite the objections at the other end of the chamber, she is doing an incredible job of managing the very difficult processes around environmental protections and approvals and of making sure that in our budget we deliver for the environment. It was, of course, a Labor government that created the largest network of marine parks in the world, and they were Labor governments in office that delivered conservation agendas that have protected some of our most treasured environmental assets—for example, the Daintree, in my home state. We know all too well that our natural environment and unique flora and fauna are in crisis. It is true that under the last government the environment absolutely copped it, not just in a real way but in a reputational way as well. We know that, through the Senate, there were many attempts to deal with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and that in those negotiations there were attempts by the previous government to water it down. Finally, there is a Labor government and a Labor environment minister who are willing to work to protect the environment, protect native species and protect the Great Barrier Reef. I'm very proud of what we managed to deliver in the budget last night to protect the environment. This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, deals with environmental protection. It deals with listings and the way that approvals are made under the EPBC Act. We know that the environmental laws that we have right now have an established legal framework to manage and protect all threatened species and ecological communities as matters of national environmental significance, and that includes the koala. In February this year, koalas were listed as endangered under the act for the combined populations across the east coast, where they are at most risk. Nobody wants to see this happen; nobody wants to see a listing of this kind, but it is really important to understand that a listing under the act, which has been referred to today in such a misleading way, does actually provide an opportunity for assessments to be made around risks for that species. As a result, koalas have comprehensive recovery plans in place, and that is the same, in fact, for every native species. I know the koala is incredibly important and popular and iconic, but we want to make sure every native species that is at risk is dealt with in the same way and is protected under the act. Last night's budget showed that the Labor government is making significant investment in the protection and conservation of our environment and, of course, of koalas, with $76 million towards koala conservation, including a new commitment of $24.5 under the new Saving Native Species plan, which will fund habitat restoration, threat management and monitoring and health initiatives. The budget also included funding for a national koala recovery team, which has been convened to guide and track the implementation of the recovery plan, because we know the recovery plan on its own will not do the hard work of delivering protection, so we are funding a national recovery team. They held their first meeting on 7 October. They are already getting on with the job, and we are looking forward to seeing the important work that they do. It is really important to understand that what this bill proposes is to change our environmental laws to afford preferential treatment for koalas over other species, and that is something that we need to consider. I know that the Leadbeater's possum and the loggerhead turtle are other favourites of people in this place and in the community, but we consider that all of those species should be dealt with in the same way under the act. That's why it is important to understand how this legislation would actually impact powers and responsibilities under the EPBC Act. Labor's budget last night also delivered for the environment more broadly. I think it is important to understand, in the context of this debate—as, from time to time, we see bills from the Greens—that when you are a party of government you can deliver a budget that delivers for the environment. It's all well and good to come in here with private members' bills that seek to tinker around the edges of environmental laws and seek to do things that, practically, would be very difficult to deliver. But, when you are a party of government—when the Labor Party is in government—we deliver real investment for the environment and protection that is funded and that can be delivered on the ground. That is an incredibly important thing to understand in the context of this debate. Under Labor, the environment is back on the agenda. I was so pleased to see so much investment in the budget last night under 'climate change'—a new phrase, for those opposite, in the budget—but also for the environment more broadly. Australians can see the difference. People are telling me it's the breath of fresh air our nation desperately needs. We saw that last night. The budget delivers $1.8 billion in funding for the environment. This is a down payment on our commitment to prioritise the environment after almost a decade of neglect under the former government. The Australian government is delivering on its election promises as well. Unlike those opposite, we don't just have media releases and make announcements; we actually deliver on our promises. There are a range of targeted investments to reverse the decline from the previous government. In the budget this year the Australian government builds on its commitments, and this is a very important investment with regard to the debate we're having today around the EPBC Act. We have included funding in this budget to respond to the Samuel review of the EPBC Act. We know it was released a few years ago. It was put on the shelf and ignored by those opposite. We will be responding to that review. We have funded a response to that review to make sure that it can be delivered. We can't fix a decade of Liberal environmental damage overnight. We can't undo the recklessness of having no consistent energy policy over 10 years. We can't undo the years and years of internal chaos around whether climate change is even real. We can't undo overnight the lack of investment and certainty around climate change and renewable energy. But we can deliver a budget that is focused on getting things moving and hitting the ground running. We have higher ambition when it comes to climate change, a clearer path to net zero and a pathway to no new extinctions. We are cracking down on gases that are bad for the ozone layer. We have new laws that better protect the environment and give businesses the ability to make quicker and clearer decisions—something that people have been crying out for. We have an environmental protection agency which will be the top cop on the beat to enforce those laws—something those opposite refused to do when they were in government. And we have made a commitment to protect 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of the oceans by 2030. We've announced a new nature repair market to reward farmers and other landholders for their work in restoring and protecting the environment. We are working with the agricultural sector, who are some of the people telling us that we need to take action on climate change and deliver lasting reform when it comes to environmental protections. We've committed to expanding blue carbon projects—more mangroves and seagrasses, making our oceans cleaner and getting carbon out of the atmosphere—reducing problematic plastic, developing environmentally friendly plastic and alternatives, and making recycling easier for families and businesses. There is more work to be done, but it would be wrong for anyone to come into this place and use this bill as an opportunity to attack the current government or the current environment minister on her commitment and our government's commitment to the environment and to delivering real protection for the environment and real investment. Something we can do and something that Labor governments always do is stand up for the environment. There's more that we can do, but we are getting on with the job. In addition to this investment it has been fantastic to see the work that we are doing on the ground with Landcare rangers. We are investing $90 million over six years to employ and upskill 1,000 Landcare rangers to help us conserve and restore the environment. We are also making sure that we are investing in actions for threatened species, places and recovery activities. There is $224 million in the budget for that action. Of course I am incredibly proud of the investment that we are making to protect and restore the Great Barrier Reef. That includes $1.2 billion—and $204 million of that is new funding—to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We know that, under the last government, the reef—one of the biggest economic drivers in regional Queensland—was put at real and reputational risk. That is very clear. We know that. No amount of obfuscating from those opposite would— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GREEN 259819 They wouldn't be able to say that they stood up for the reef, protected those jobs and made sure that all the communities that rely on the reef were protected. That is what we are doing as a government. I'm incredibly proud that, of that $204 million, $15 million will be going to a centre of excellence in Gladstone to make sure that there is research and science going into our reef's protection, and that $96 million of that funding will be for on-the-ground projects working with farmers, traditional owners and Indigenous rangers to make sure that we are dealing with water quality projects, that we are measuring and monitoring water quality, and that we're giving people real-time information. There is so much to be proud of in this budget when it comes to the environment, and that is how you protect species like the koala. You invest in the Samuel review, which we are doing; you deliver a response, which the minister has committed to do; you make sure that your approvals under the Environment Protection Act are sound and that they're based, not on rants in the Senate but on sound advice; you make sure that investment is going into threatened species; you make sure that we have funding to deliver recovery plans and don't just leave them on a shelf to gather dust; and you ensure that you are investing in the Great Barrier Reef and that you are protecting our environment in a way that actually delivers economic benefits all across the country. That is what you do if you are a Labor government that cares about the environment. That's exactly what this country needs, and that's exactly what this country got last night. I am incredibly proud to be working very closely with the Minister for the Environment and Water. I know she takes her role incredibly seriously in assessing approvals of projects, and is aware of the responsibility that we have to project threatened species like the koala. What we won't do is come into the Senate and pretend that a bill which tinkers around the edges and looks at treating one species differently to others is the answer to delivering long-lasting environmental protection. Labor governments protect the environment by making sure that there is long-lasting reform and long-lasting investment, and that we have people committed to these protections. That's what we did in the budget last night, that is what the minister for the environment is continuing to do and that's what we will continue to do as a party of government who is building on fixing the last 10 years of mess and reducing the neglect. 09:32 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's a great pleasure to join others in making a contribution to an important debate. While I agree with much of what Senator Green said on behalf of the opposition, not all of it is something I can sign up to. I want to start my contribution on this, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, by acknowledging the passion that the proponent of this bill has in the causes that she prosecutes as the Greens environment spokesperson. I don't think anyone in this place can doubt Senator Hanson-Young's commitment to the cause and what she stands for. Matched with that, though, is the rhetoric that we heard in the contribution she made around development versus environment, and economy versus environment. I think that's something we do need to interrogate a little bit in the time available to me and in the debate on this bill and on what, exactly, it does. It was pleasing to hear Senator Green look at the effect or impact of this bill and what it would materially do, what difference it would make and whether it would be the answer that we heard in the first speech of the 2022 consideration of this bill. No-one argues with the fact that we need to do everything we can to preserve and protect our precious and fragile environment. Not a single person in this place thinks it is worth burning, chucking away or destroying—no-one. Most people who are characterised as having that view, of course, are people who believe in balance—and that's a concept I'm going to come back to a little later on—be they farmers, foresters or people who are making a contribution to the Australian government's commitment to build a million new homes for Australians to live in and to ease the housing crisis. They're all characterised in the same way as developers who want to 'destroy the environment'. But I think it is a falsehood to suggest that this bill is the only way to address the issues and pressures being faced by the koala and the environment it lives in. It's wrong to suggest that this is the only way—or, indeed, even a way—because I'm not convinced this bill would materially improve the outcomes for the koala in the way it has been suggested. The debate that's being set up here frames the parameters of discussion to suggest that the only way to protect the koala is to stop all land clearing. We know, very well, that to enter into an arrangement of that nature, to put in place a moratorium on any form of land clearing, in habitat, that would be contemplated under elements of this bill, would have a dire impact on other parts of our society—that balance I talked about between the environment and the economy. We have to have the best standards possible when it comes to the management of our environment, and to habitat management for endangered and threatened species, to ensure that we don't make situations worse. That is absolutely central to what we as a developed nation must put in place when it comes to our environmental legislation and the regulation around development, resources extraction and managing the forestry industry. We have to have all of those regimes in place as part of international obligations we sign up to—rightly so and proudly so, as Senator Green said on behalf of the Labor Party. But stopping all clearing of land is not the answer. That's a point that was made in 2021 in the last parliament by the then opposition as well, that this is a blunt instrument that's not effective. It's important to point out when dealing with this one issue, land clearing, whatever the cause or reason behind it, be it clearing land for productive purposes, such as grazing cattle, cropping, dealing with our needs for sustenance and food or for the creation of land to build houses—we know, as part of last night's budget, that there was a commitment to construct an extra million homes to assist with the housing crisis that we know Australians are facing—that they are not the only reasons. I only have to reflect on the debate on this bill in the last parliament to consider another cause of habitat loss and destruction for the koala. I refer to the contribution from Senator Faruqi in February of last year. Senator Faruqi made the point that the bushfires of 2019 and 2020 were a major contributor to habitat loss for koalas. The point is that this bill isn't going to stop bushfires. Senator Rice 155410 You don't log what doesn't get burnt. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Senator Rice makes an interjection there: 'If you don't log them, they don't get burnt.' Again, this is— Senator Rice 155410 No, I said, 'You don't log what doesn't get burnt.' Senator DUNIAM 263418 'You don't log what doesn't get burnt,' okay. Senator Faruqi in her contribution said that the 2019-20 bushfires destroyed more than 12 million hectares of forests and killed more than a billion animals and devastated communities. Let's take that at face value. That is a massive impact on the environment and a massive impact on the habitat of koalas. But the bill doesn't address any of that. To suggest that this bill would be the panacea for the koala—we all want to see the best outcome for this great icon; we want to make sure that we put in place the best arrangements to protect its habitat and future, but this bill doesn't deal with bushfires, for example. We need to consider this too. Rarely are we given the opportunity to look at things like fuel-reduction burns and other regimes of good forest management that would contribute to preserving the habitat of koalas. Concurrent with the points that have been made about what this bill would do, it does cut off the ability to contribute a holistic approach to species management and species preservation. Senator Faruqi bells the cat on that by pointing to, over a year ago, the fact that over 12 million hectares were burnt, impacting on koalas, but there isn't one bit of contemplation of that in this bill introduced by her colleague. Looking again at the debate that occurred over a year ago now—nearly two years, in fact—I want to reflect on the contributions that were made. The Labor position hasn't really changed, which I think is a good thing. Senator McAllister, who made a contribution on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, made the point that: Unfortunately, here in the Australian Senate, a private senator's bill is unlikely to be the solution. This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, has no chance of becoming law. She said that, even if it were to pass the Senate, it wouldn't make it through the House. She made the point that this bill, in its creation, was never taken to the communities that it would impact and there was no consultation. She said: … we wouldn't have any idea about this because there is no evidence of any discussion at all in the development of this bill with the communities that it would affect. Indeed, what's lacking in this bill is any consideration whatsoever of local communities. That was Senator Jenny McAllister making that point over a year ago. She went on to say: This bill would have an impact on people and their livelihoods. Every natural resource decision does, but this bill doesn't establish, contemplate or reference any mechanism for a conversation with community about how to approach this problem. It doesn't reference or contemplate any mechanism to balance competing demands for land use, and this should matter to conservationists as well as communities that are dependent on forestry. I think they are very important points to make. A point I have made in relation to this debate before is that we need to balance these things. We live in the environment. We rely on the environment. We need to ensure that we look after the environment. I don't think that's an amusing fact. But we also need to consider the economy we also depend on for livelihoods. We talk a lot about poverty. We talked about pressures on housing. We talk about the need to ensure that Australians have a good standard of living. But the net effect of this bill when taken alone, when viewed in a silo, will be a negative impact on the other elements of Australians' lives—the economic and social elements. Considering just one part of this equation—the environment—to the exclusion of everything else is when we have these negative impacts. So, again, I commend Senator McAllister for her views on that and the call for there to be balance in this debate. Senator Fawcett, in the same debate over a year ago, talked about the effect of the bill. He referenced the effect that it would have in his home state of South Australia, with particular reference to Kangaroo Island and how the provisions of the bill, if implemented, would have an impact on the forestry industry there. He talked about how koalas weren't native to Kangaroo Island. Before the fires that destroyed much of the forest on Kangaroo Island, there were an estimated 50,000 koalas on Kangaroo Island, with roughly half in native vegetation and half in bluegum plantations. A prohibition on being able to utilise plantations for the purpose they were planted because they are getting caught up in this bill does raise the issue that we are talking about here—what the net effect would be. That comes back to that point around balance and any unintended consequences that might flow from this. It is important to put on record the investments that were made—$50 million was invested in the future of the koala in January of this year. The former government invested $50 million to provide for the long-term protection of the koala and support recovery efforts, bringing together some of the best researchers, land managers and veterinarians. It was something that I think was much needed. The $50 million included: $20 million for habitat and protection projects; grants for large-scale activities run by natural resource management and non-government organisations; $10 million for community led initiatives; grants for local habitat protection and restoration activities; $10 million to extend the National Koala Monitoring Program; $2 million to improve koala health outcomes, which would be run through a grant program for researchers to undertake work; and $1 million for koala care, treatment and triage programs. That took the total investment in support for koalas up to $74 million between 2019 and 2022, which is not an insignificant amount of money. I want to reference a point Senator Green made, and that was that we are currently facing the response to the review of the EPBC Act, the Samuel review, and what that will mean for environmental laws in this country. Here we are seeking to amend a bill that is probably going to look nothing like it does now. I would have thought the better thing to do would be to put the contribution into the Samuels review of koala habitat protection rather than trying to amend a bill that probably doesn't have a very long life in front of it. That is what we should be doing, looking at this holistically, and on that notion of looking at things holistically there is again the point of balance. We live in a time where, as with last night's budget being handed down, there are many references and nods to the cost-of-living crisis, which wasn't referenced in the first speech today: the cost of energy going up, the cost of housing going up and the cost of food and fuel going up. Those things don't matter when we consider the environment as a stand-alone issue, but the reality is that every decision made with an environmental lens has an impact on how we live and how the economy functions. We cannot have this view looking at just one element of a decision-making process. We must balance environment with economy, and it goes the other way too. We know what happens when decisions are made with a purely economic focus. I will take you down to Tasmania to the beautiful community. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Yes, I will take you down to Tasmania, Senator Farrell. You can come! Decisions 150 years ago were made with absolutely no regard to the environment. You only have to look at the river that flows through Queenstown and the decisions that were made about how to deal with mine waste. We don't do that anymore. That's not how we operate. There was no regard for the environment, and thank God we don't do things that way anymore. It's 2022. But, by the same token, we cannot make decisions purely based on environmental grounds. To save an animal is important, but to shut down industries and to remove capacity for land use, including finding land to build the million homes that this government wants to build and that Australians so desperately need, I think, is short-sighted and, indeed, something that will have devastating impact. Again, in this debate, the opposition's position is pretty clear, as it was in 2021. Balance is required. I commend the mover of the bill for her passion matched by the rhetoric in her speech, but there are better ways to achieve the outcomes she seeks to achieve: through science, through balance and through consultation with the community. 09:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak on the save the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021. If you will indulge me, I will start with a personal story. I moved to Australia as a 14-year-old. We arrived in Brisbane not knowing many people in Australia but did have family friends who had moved to Cleveland, in Brisbane, a few years prior, and so I stayed with them. My first morning in Australia, a bit jetlagged, I was up early and out the door with my brothers and our friends, cruising through the parklands of Redland Bay, and I stumbled across a koala. It was head height in a tree. It had obviously been going from one tree to the next and was scampering up. I was transfixed by this incredible animal that I had seen so much on TV but never in my wildest dreams imagined I would see on my very first day in Australia. I assumed this must be pretty normal in Australia. 'There's wildlife everywhere. Koalas are everywhere.' Not so. In the 20 years since then, I think I've seen two other koalas in the wild, despite spending a fair amount of time looking for them. Let's remember, when we talk about this bill, that we look up and see schoolchildren who have come up here to watch us. We do things in here to ensure that the children who come and tour this place, who watch proceedings here, who watch the Senate, will be able to see koalas. With the way we've been treating the environment—the way that both major parties have been treating the environment—that won't be the case. So we're in a dire situation here. The koala is a flagship species—it's a national icon—and what is happening to koalas in Australia is a travesty. When we focus on one species, like the koala, I think it's important to view it as a flagship species and remember that when we talk about protecting the koala and koala habitat, we're protecting a habitat for hundreds, probably thousands, of other species that call that same habitat home. I appreciate Senator Duniam's sentiments about how much our attitudes towards land management have changed in Australia, and I think the koala is a great example of some of that. Australia went through a frontier period when natural resources were used as fast as they could be. Some would argue that that's still happening in areas. When it comes to the koala, between 2.5 million and three million koalas were shot to supply the fur trade in America and Europe from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Clearly there were a lot of koalas across the continent for that to happen. In contrast to these astounding numbers, the current koala population is believed to be between 40,000 to 100,000 animals. Yes, that was in the past, but we now have choices. And despite having those choices, we're not doing enough. That's why we're here today debating this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021. Over the last 20 years since I saw that koala in Redland Bay in Queensland, we've lost one in four koalas. They are now listed as endangered and, scientists tell us, are on track to be extinct by 2050, which is not that far away. They're being pushed closer and closer to extinction by clearing, cars, dogs and disease. Yesterday, the budget committed $57 million to assist in the conservation of koalas. I commend the government on that, and I'd like to recognise this is likely due to strong advocacy from people like Deborah Tabart and the Australian Koala Foundation. I'd like to congratulate her on her work and thank her. But it's clearly not enough. We can do more and we must do more. Senator Duniam talked about looking to science to help us solve these problems. Thankfully, we have some of the world's best environmental scientists in Australia and some of the world's leading ecologists right here in Australia. This is a mega-diverse country. It's such a privilege to be able to share this continent with an incredible array of species. It turns out that a bunch of these leading scientists actually did get together, and they said, 'What will it cost to halt Australia's extinction crisis?' There is a firm commitment from the new government. I welcome that commitment and I thank them for it, but it's got to be backed up with action and it's got to be backed up with cold hard cash to ensure that these leading ecologists and land managers across the country can actually deliver on that promise. The Australian people hear a lot of these big promises and platitudes. When it comes to saving the koala, Australians want action. Going back to these leading scientists—they put together a paper called Spending to save: what will it cost to halt Australia's extinction crisis? The authors were Brendan Wintle, Natasha Cadenhead, Rachel Morgain, Sarah Legge, Sarah Bekessy, Matthew Cantele, Hugh Possingham, James Watson, Martine Maron, David Keith, Stephen Garnett, John Woinarski and David Lindenmayer. I'll quote: In Australia, the drivers of extinction broadly reflect the global profile, although invasive species have played a relatively larger role compared to most of the rest of the world. A potent combination of rapid habitat destruction— Habitat destruction is largely what this debate is about. It continues: and introduced predators, herbivores and pathogens, has resulted in Australia losing more biodiversity than any other developed nation in the past 200 years. These facts are sobering, and they should spur us to action. In this paper, the authors concluded that, given what we know about the dire situation when it comes to biodiversity in Australia—and this is a 2019 paper—it will take around $1.7 billion per year to halt extinctions. So, while it's great to hear that in the budget there's $57 million for the koala—$225 million over the forward estimates—it's not nearly enough. We have to continue to invest in the protection of this incredible continent, which all of us should want to leave for future generations in a better condition, with more biodiversity, than when we entered this place where the big decisions get made. That group of scientists go on to say: Improving the accountability and transparency of expenditure on conservation of threatened species in Australia would also enable a better understanding of the effectiveness of conservation investment. At the moment, because funding is so scant, our monitoring programs are not up to scratch. We simply don't have the data on many of the species that we think are threatened. We just don't have the data to back that up. Clearly, this is something that the Labor government are going to have to think a lot more about. They will need to come to the May budget with a significant increase if they are going to get anywhere close to their bold plan to halt extinctions. I'd like to quote one of our leading ecologists, Dr Euan Ritchie, who recently, after the Labor government committed to no new extinctions, said: It's well and good to say you love wildlife and be photographed cuddling koalas, but if you're still approving the destruction of their habitat, if you're still committing to fossil fuel use … it's very hard to see how those things are aligned with a zero-extinction ambition. I'd really like to put that to the Senate today as we debate this important bill. Do we want to continue with the platitudes about how much we love our environment, how important it is, while we continue to chronically underfund it and give billions of dollars to a fossil fuel industry that is hauling in eye-watering profits, or are we going to change? Are we going to finally say: 'Our environment is fundamental to us thriving as people and as a country. We understand that we are part of nature; if nature goes down, we go down with it'? There's a huge element of self-interest in this. Investment in the environment is an investment in ourselves, in our futures. So let's not entertain the arguments that pit the environment and looking after the place in which we live against good lives for everyday Australians. Those two things are tied together. You can't have one without the other—as we're starting to see when we turn on the television and see people going through floods for the fourth, fifth or sixth time in a couple of seasons. We should protect native species for their intrinsic value alone. They deserve to continue to exist. Many of them have been here for millions of years, long before humans arrived on this continent and certainly long before modern Australia, the last 200 years in which we've seen the catastrophic decline in our wildlife. But even if you don't buy the intrinsic-value argument, the economic argument is strong. It's very hard to argue with. Half of Australia's GDP, around $900 billion, is directly dependent on nature. Again, we are part of nature. If nature goes down, we go down with her. As I mentioned last night, we saw $225 million committed over four years to slow the rate of native species decline. This is a small increase in election commitment. I welcome it. More money for conservation is a good thing. But clearly we need to be upping our ambition. A leading ecologist in Australia, Professor David Lindenmayer, and his colleagues at the ANU and elsewhere have done a huge amount of work that makes it just so clear how important it is to halt the clearing of our native forests. They are critical habitat for our native species, including koalas. They are also invaluable carbon sinks. We know that forests that are logged burn easily. It's potentially counterintuitive, but the research that shows that is very strong. So, there's a real incentive for us to bring an end to native forest logging, to move to plantations. There are enough plantations for us to make that transition. Native forest logging is largely not profitable anymore, and taxpayers are subsidising the cutting down of our native forests—in an extinction crisis, where we have a government committing to halting extinction. This seems like a really sensible way forward to actually deal with this: bring native forest logging to an end, stop clearing koala habitat and ensure that the schoolchildren who come through this place are able to see koalas in the wild and that, in five years time, we have more koalas in Australia than we do now, and in 10 years time even more koalas. That's the kind of world I want to live in. I don't buy the argument that you can have either a prosperous economy or koalas. We're part of the environment. We're part of nature. I commend this bill and the work Senator Hanson-Young has done. 10:02 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Recently I joined a koala habitat tree-planting day with the Koala Clancy Foundation. It was industrial-scale tree planting. As far as the eye could see, trees were going in the ground. There were about 50 volunteers on the day I was there, and over a period of a couple of weeks the Koala Clancy Foundation was planting out I think 50 or 100 hectares with thousands and thousands of trees. It's a fantastic contribution to try to create habitat for koalas. However, the day I was there, as I was planting these trees in the ground, my mind kept going off to the fact that less than 100 kilometres away, in the Wombat State Forest—soon to be Wombat National Park—the Andrews government is logging koala habitat. They're calling it 'salvage logging', but I've seen the photos; it looks like clear-felling to me. The Victorian National Parks Association and the local environment groups knew this logging was going ahead, and it is going ahead. They did some surveys of the areas of the forest that were planned to be logged. They found in overnight surveys in these areas of forest that were being logged—areas that are about to be a national park—40 greater gliders, one powerful owl, four koalas, one boobook, one feathertail glider and seven ringtail possums. It is outrageous. I think of all the wonderful work that groups around the country like the Koala Clancy Foundation are doing, and meanwhile our precious native forest, home to koalas and such a diverse range of other species, is continuing to be destroyed by logging and by clearing. It's not hard to understand what needs to happen to save the koala and our other precious wildlife. If there were kids in the gallery they would understand it. Koalas, greater gliders, Leadbeater's possums and other forest-dwelling animals need trees and they need forests. That's where they live. And if you destroy those forests they don't have homes to live in. Logging, just like clearing, destroys their habitats. Some species that don't need hollows in old trees might come back within 10 or 20 years, but other species like the greater glider, the Leadbeater's possum and the owl actually need the hollows in the old trees to live and to breed. That means that after a logging operation that bit of forest is not going to be of any use to them to live and to breed in for over a hundred years. If we are going to save the koala, if we're going to save the greater glider and if we're going to save other species we need to be protecting their homes and we need to be protecting their forests. In Victoria, koalas have got it relatively easy because they don't need the hollows, and the cooler climate means there's more suitable forest. But in New South Wales and Queensland, where koalas are under threat from logging and land clearing for coalmines and urban development, it's predicted that if this continues koalas are going to be extinct within 50 years. When we look at the impact of bushfires, as Senator Duniam was talking about, the Black Summer fires destroyed the habitat of so many of our species and so much forest. Yes, it was devastating. So what should your response be to that? You do not log and you do not clear the areas of forests that weren't burnt; they are even more precious for the animals that have survived the fires. You also make sure that you take action to reduce the risk of fire. What that means is reducing the amount of logging and stopping logging, because the science is very clear now that logging and clear-felling our forests makes them more prone to fire. It means fires will occur much more frequently and they'll be more intense when they occur. So it's pretty clear what we need to be doing. We need to be protecting habitat and we need to be stopping logging; we need to be stopping native forest logging. In response to the lack of protection at state and federal government levels, citizens are taking it into their own hands. We've seen so many court actions in Victoria against VicForests. In fact, the latest court action was decided just yesterday, where the wonderful citizens of the Warburton Environment Group had taken action against VicForests because they were logging an endangered plant species—the tree geebung. They won, and in fact the Supreme Court judge, Justice Garde, stated in the judgement that no attempt was made by VicForests to show that it was not reasonably practicable to protect the significant number of tree geebungs which had been destroyed in harvested areas through the use of bulldozers and mechanical equipment, and that given the evidence as to the past harvesting and burning practices of VicForests it is highly likely that significant numbers of mature tree geebungs have been lost in the Central Highlands in the past through harvesting and regeneration burning. The precise extent of the loss will never be known, but on the basis of recent records it's likely to amount to many hundreds or even thousands of mature trees. This is the reality of logging in our native forests today. It should not be up to citizens to spend millions of dollars going to court to protect our heritage. In response, we've got state governments that are in fact changing the laws to make it easier to log and changing the laws to stop people protesting, and to stop even citizen science like this. These are draconian laws that stop people from protesting and even doing citizen science. In Victoria we've got a state election in a month's time where the future of our forests is going to be a key issue. And it is only the Greens who are wanting to protect our forests, and it is only the Greens who want to end native forest destruction immediately, because that is what needs to happen if we are going to protect koalas, greater gliders, Leadbeater's possums, wollerts and all the other threatened species that call our forests home. But of course it shouldn't be up to the states on their own to protect our forests and to have laws to protect our forests, because the Commonwealth has a responsibility. These are issues of national significance. This was found in the Samuel review into the EPBC Act, where Graeme Samuel found that our existing laws were not protecting our forests and that the regional forests agreements were not protecting threatened species. He also found that matters of national environmental significance in forests should be assessed in the same way as they would be if they were being impacted by other destructive activities. This bill that we have before us today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, is, in fact, a very modest bill. It's very reasonable. It's very moderate. It's actually not calling for an end to all native forest logging, which is what the Greens really do want to see. We do, and we're upfront that that's what we want to see. It is a modest, interim solution to protect some of the most significant and most loved species—the loved animals—of Australia. All this bill does is what the Australian public would think was already happening. All this bill does is prevent the minister from approving an action under the EPBC Act where that action involves the clearing of koala habitat. Surely that's what people would have thought already occurred—that our national environmental laws actually would protect koalas, which people love so much. The bill also removes the exemption of regional forest agreements from the requirements of the EPBC Act where there is, may be or is likely to be a significant impact on koalas. Surely this is what the Australian community expects. People do not expect, people do not want, logging to be destroying the habitat of our precious wildlife. We don't need to be logging our forests. Plantations are already providing 90 per cent of the wood that's coming out of Australia, and in fact we are exporting 70 per cent of that plantation timber. There is so much potential to be doing more through our plantations, through farm forestry and through urban sawmilling. We don't need to be logging our forests for wood production. We need to be ending logging immediately, for wildlife, for koalas, for all other species and for climate, because the best way— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The time allotted for this debate has expired. Senator Rice 155410 I seek to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 11

Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

First Reading 11 10:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Senator McALLISTER 121628 by leave—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to these bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bills The additional 2022-23 Supply Bills will propose appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund broadly equivalent to 7/12ths of the estimated 2022-23 annual appropriations for continuity of government programs and the running of Commonwealth entities. Reasons for Urgency The Supply Act (No. 1) 2022-2023, Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2022-2023 (the 2022-23 Supply Acts) provide for anticipated expenditure to support the ongoing business of the Government broadly through to the end of November 2022. The additional 2022-23 Supply Bills will propose supply appropriations to continue the ongoing business of the Government from 1 December 2022 until 30 June 2023. Passage of the additional 2022-23 Supply Bills before the end of November 2022 will ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the last seven months of the 2022-23 financial year. Consistent with recent practice, accelerated passage of these Supply Bills will enable conventional parliamentary processes, including Senate Estimates hearings, to be followed prior to the enactment of the Budget Bills. Should passage not be granted before the end of November 2022, the Commonwealth would not be able to ensure continuity of its programs or meet its obligations as they fall due beyond 30 November 2022. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance) Question agreed to. Second Reading 11 10:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— SUPPLY BILL (NO. 3) 2022-2023 The Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, together with Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of ongoing government business. The Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 provides annual appropriations for proposed expenditure on the ordinary annual services of government for broadly the last seven months of 2022-23. Annual appropriations for expenditure on the ordinary annual services of government for broadly the first five months of 2022-23 were provided by the Supply Act (No. 1) 2022-2023. The Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $49 billion. The Bill must be passed in this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of 2022-23, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. The appropriations proposed in this Bill provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 Budget estimates and adjusted for a small number of programs and entities that received more than five-twelfths of their annual appropriations in the 2022-23 Supply Acts. This was to provide flexibility for selected entities to manage uneven expenditure early in the financial year. The Bill reflects the structure of government in line with the Administrative Arrangements Order which commenced on 1 July 2022. I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year. Therefore, no new decisions taken in the October 2022 Budget are included in this Bill. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes, including Senate Estimates hearings, to be followed prior to the enactment of the Budget Appropriation Bills by the Parliament. The Bill does not contain a provision for an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM). The AFM provisions in the Supply Act (No. 1) 2022-2023, being $2 billion for COVID-19-related expenditure and $400 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure, will continue pending the passage of Budget Appropriation Bill No. 1. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the updated 2022-23 Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the October 2022 Budget. I commend this Bill to the chamber. SUPPLY BILL (NO. 4) 2022-2023 The Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, along with Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 andSupply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of ongoing government business. The Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 provides for annual appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government, such as for capital works and services, payments to states, territories and local governments, and for equity injections for broadly the last seven months of 2022-23. Annual appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government for broadly the first five months of 2022-23 were provided by the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023. This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $10 billion. The Bill must be passed in this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of 2022-23, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. The appropriations proposed in this Bill provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 Budget estimates and adjusted for a small number of programs and entities that received more than five-twelfths of their annual appropriations in the 2022-23 Supply Acts. This was to provide flexibility for selected entities to manage uneven expenditure early in the financial year. The Bill reflects the structure of government in line with the new Administrative Arrangements Order which commenced on 1 July 2022. As with the Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, this Bill seeks only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year. Therefore, no new decisions taken in the October 2022 Budget are included in this Bill. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes, including Senate Estimates hearings, to be followed prior to the enactment of the October 2022 Budget Appropriation Bills by the Parliament. The Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023 established debit limits for general purpose financial assistance and national partnership payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 for the full 2022-23 financial year. Therefore, no further debit limits have been included in this Bill. The Bill does not contain a provision for an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM). The AFM provisions in the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023, being $3 billion for COVID-19-related expenditure and $600 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure, will continue pending the passage of Budget Appropriation Bill No. 2. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the updated 2022-23 Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the October 2022 Budget. I commend this Bill to the chamber. SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 2) 2022-2023 The Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 provides appropriations for broadly the last seven months of 2022-23 for the operations of: the Department of the Senate; the Department of the House of Representatives; the Department of Parliamentary Services; and the Parliamentary Budget Office. This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $155 million. The appropriations proposed in this Bill provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 Budget estimates. The Bill must be passed in this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the Parliamentary Departments for the remainder of 2022-23, thereby ensuring the continuity of the Parliament's operations. As with the other additional 2022-23 Supply Bills, I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year. Therefore, no new decisions taken in the October 2022 Budget are included in this Bill. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes, including Senate Estimates hearings, to be followed prior to the enactment of the October 2022 Budget Appropriation Bills by the Parliament. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the updated 2022-23 Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the October 2022 Budget. I commend this Bill to the chamber. 10:14 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak briefly on Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023. The opposition will support the passage of these bills. It is appropriate that the important functions of government continue and departments are resourced to effectively carry out their duties when the examination of the appropriation bills continues through the parliamentary process, and the expeditious passage of these bills means that there will be no delay. There is of course a lot that this budget does deserve examination over, and the coalition looks forward to the estimates process that will begin later this week. Unfortunately, for many Australian families this budget confirms that the cost of living is going up, electricity and gas bills are going up, taxes are also going up, government spending is going up and employment is going down, and real wages are forecast to go down also. Labor's budget last night confirmed that under this government growth will be lower. Last night we heard a long speech from the Treasurer—a lot of rhetoric, but minus a clear plan to bring down the cost of living for Australian families. It's clear that just six months since the election the government has ditched the guardrails on good policy. There is no handbrake on spending. Under this government, spending is up. There is no speed limit on tax and no cap on the Australian Public Service, with an additional 8,000 bureaucrats since they came to government. Maybe—just maybe—when the appropriation bills are progressed to the House and considered by the other place then a plan from the government may become clearer. Unfortunately, the opposition is not optimistic. In keeping with convention, on the basis of discussions between the government and the opposition, the coalition will support the passage of these supply bills this morning. I also note that two amendments have been circulated in the chamber by the Australian Greens, and the coalition will be opposing both. 10:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania When Mr Albanese was elected he made a promise to the Australian people. He promised that no-one would be left behind and that no-one would be held back. Well, that promise that he made to the Australian people was broken in his first budget last night. After this budget, we know we're not all in this together. Too many Australians are being left behind, and many more are being held back. This is a Labor budget in name only. They say they're going to get wages moving again, but wages are flatlining over the forward estimates. They say they're committed to full employment, but unemployment is flagged to go up. They say they're providing cost-of-living relief, but those who are on the lowest incomes are going to bear most of the pain. The Treasurer's buzzword is 'responsible'. But if you're leaving behind the people who need it the most, if you are publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels in the middle of a climate crisis, then this cannot be considered a responsible budget. There is more than a whiff of austerity about this budget, because it's the people in our country who are the least well off who will feel the most pain. Meanwhile, in a deliberate policy choice, the stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires, for CEOs and for politicians are baked in. It's champagne for the top end and it's real pain for the people who are doing it the toughest. But we're facing two crises here: a cost-of-living crisis and a climate and ecological crisis. People's incomes are going down, and people's homes are ending up underwater. Food is getting more expensive. Grocery prices have risen by 17 per cent this year, and too many Australians simply cannot afford fresh fruit and vegetables. And, thanks to the climate-crisis-fuelled floods around this country, food prices are flagged to go up even more. Meanwhile the big corporations like the big two supermarkets are raking in megaprofits. Housing's getting more expensive. Rents are currently rising four times as fast as wages. But if you've got wealthy parents, you're going OK. Young people are being locked out of the great Australian dream of owning their own home. They're being forced into unsafe tenancy just to keep a roof over their heads. Electricity is going through the roof. At a retail level, bills are going to go up by 56 per cent over the next two years, and we are being extorted for our own gas by multinationals who send the profits offshore. We're in the middle of a global gas boom, and our gas tax is so utterly rorted by the big corporations that we're actually going to get less tax as a result. There is a half-billion reduction in the petroleum resource rent tax revenue forecast in this budget. Child care going up, education going up, transport going up—there is real pain for a lot of people in this budget, but, instead of doing something significant to provide genuine and immediate cost-of-living relief, we've got a Treasurer who's playing at the margins with many measures that are delayed and won't be implemented now, when people need the help. As I said, wages aren't going to move. We've got too many people in insecure work, too many people suffering from wage theft. Short-term contracts and labour hire are driving down wages. Working people need more power in this country because the big corporations have gotten too much power. They're making huge profits. Their share of the economy, the share of the economy that is going into profits, hasn't been this high since the gilded age. At the same time we are facing, in the short, medium and long term, the collapse of our climate, fuelled by coal and gas corporations and the psychopath that run them. The climate crisis is part of what is driving the cost-of-living crisis—insurance costs, damage to infrastructure, disruptions to supply chains, including food supply, or just your suburb or your town going underwater or burning in a bushfire, the fear, the anxiety and the stress. Burning coal and gas for cash, for profits, is killing people and it's costing us billions of dollars. So what's the government's response to all of this? Labor's response: baking in the stage 3 tax cuts for the billionaires and handing out billions to fossil fuel corporations. They're driving inequality higher and pouring petrol on the climate fire. Labor is leaving too many people behind. The stage 3 tax cuts will destroy Australia's progressive income tax system. They're going to give a $9,000-a-year tax cut to the billionaires and to the CEOs and to everyone who sits in this place as either a senator or an MP. They will benefit predominantly already very wealthy, rich, old, white men, but they won't benefit many young people. They won't benefit as many women as men and they won't benefit as many people of colour as they do white people. They'll drive inequality, and let's think about this: $254 billion that could have gone into providing genuine and immediate cost-of-living relief for the people who are actually going to feel the pain from flatlining wages, unemployment going up, the prospect of more interest rates hikes and spiralling electricity and gas prices. We could have helped them out and done much more for them. But, no, the Treasurer made a choice last night to look after the top end and walk away from those people. We could put in place a rent freeze, so people's rents were more affordable. We could wipe student debt so that young people and people who've finished their university degrees would have more money in their pockets. We could make dental and mental part of Medicare. We could make child care free. These measures won't drive inflation, as the Treasurer would have you believe. They will reduce inflation and they will improve people's lives. And I want to remind people: improving people's lives is the whole point of government. It's why we're all here, and the Treasurer made a choice to not do that last night. What his choice was, at a time when people are trying to work out whether they're going to pay their power bills or afford the groceries, when they're making huge sacrifices to keep their heads above water, at a time when inequality is at a record high, was to have a Labor government giving the richest people in this country another $9,000 a year. If you're someone who works in a pub, or cleans in a school or hospital, or looks after a shop, or had to leave home and work during the pandemic, you're very unlikely to benefit from these tax cuts. Remember, there is nothing in the stage 3 tax cuts for somebody on a minimum wage. What sort of Labor Party abandons progressive taxation? The international environment didn't make the Labor Party do this. It wasn't the war in Ukraine. The Liberal Party didn't make the Labor Party do this. It was a Labor choice to do this. This budget also hands out tens of billions in public subsidies to the big fossil fuel corporations. These corporations are driving the climate crisis, which is turbocharging extreme weather, wreaking havoc across this continent and across the world and wreaking havoc with people's lives. Those corporations in the main send their profits offshore and rip off Australian consumers. The unions understand it. The welfare sector understands it. Many economists in this country understand it. People in the pubs and the cafes and people picking up their kids after school understand that giving billions of dollars to people who don't need it, whether it's the top end of town or the big fossil fuel corporations—a handout during a cost-of-living crisis and a climate crisis—is just dumb. It is dumb and counterproductive. Labor used to be the party of working people, Yes, Labor have fiddled at the margins on cost-of-living relief in this budget. They're prepared to reduce the cost of child care for some people in a while, at the margins—a bit here, a bit there—and build a few new affordable homes. I might add that it's not a million new homes that this budget is delivering; it's actually 10,000, when you look at the detail. The headline is a million. The budget detail says, 'Ten thousand, and cross your fingers and hope that the private sector builds the other 990,000.' You see in this budget a Labor Party that's lost its appetite and its nerve for nation-building, big reforms. One of the most disappointing things is that, in this parliament, we've actually got the numbers to change things for the better. If Labor worked with the Greens, we could scrap the stage 3 tax cuts and pass measures which dramatically reduce the cost of living—dental and mental into Medicare, freeze rents, make child care and education free, wipe student debt, expand Medicare. We could make the gas corporations and the fossil fuel corporations pay their fair share of tax. But Labor has lost its nerve. We've been robbed, swindled, scammed and stood over by some of the world's biggest, most powerful and most polluting corporations. They give donations. They get special treatment. They're stealing our gas and selling it overseas, and funnelling their profits overseas. The government of Australia for far too long has been an entity that is owned, lock, stock and smoking barrel, by the resources industry. If Labor had the courage, we've got the numbers. If we worked together we could pass measures that would drive down the cost of living without increasing inflation. If we got past the now Liberal ideology, if we stood for the people and not the big corporations and the wealthy, we could make a huge difference. We stand ready to raise Newstart to $88 a day so that people don't have to live in grinding, daily poverty. But Labor has chosen not to do that. We stand ready to pass laws to outlaw insecure work and give working people more power so they can secure the pay rises they deserve. Together we could give workers real rights, restore the power of unions and end wage theft. But Labor has lost its nerve; this budget shows that. Its words are hollow. It's rolled over at the first sign of pressure, even from a weak, divided, irrelevant opposition. Well, the Greens stand ready to work with Labor to genuinely build a million new homes. We stand ready to make the Prime Minister's story about growing up in public housing a reality that will be accessible to everyone. But, instead of ending the public housing waiting list, under this government the public will be languishing on the waiting list for years. We need more than a story from the Prime Minister: we need the foot to be taken off our necks. I want to say something about inflation, because the Treasurer has missed a fantastic opportunity here. He has missed an opportunity because he's been too busy blaming inflationary pressures on what's happening around the world. And, of course, there are things happening around the world: conflict, climate change, supply chain issues. Of course they exist. But, domestically, what we do know is that it's not wages that are driving inflation; it is corporate profiteering that is driving inflation in this country. And what we need to address that is a corporate super profits tax. There is no need for the Treasurer to wring his hands and pretend that he has got no levers to pull to address inflation in this country. There is no need for the Treasurer to stand back and watch as the Reserve Bank continues to pile interest rate rise on top of interest rate rise, condemning the less well off in this country to yet more pain. He needs to pull the lever, introduce a corporate super profits tax and rein in the rampant price gouging of the big corporations. I flag that I will be moving a second reading amendment, Madame Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 It might assist the chamber if you actually move that now, Senator McKim. Senator McKIM JKM I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that Labor's first budget gives a $9,000 per year tax cut to billionaires and locks in the $254 billion stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy; and (b) calls on the Labor Government to repeal the stage 3 tax cuts and provide cost of living relief that will make people's lives better, including by putting dental and mental healthcare into Medicare, building more affordable housing, and making childcare free". 10:31 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak to the Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 and related bills. The Greens have circulated an amendment to this bill. The amendment ensures that no public money is spent on the drilling program in the Beetaloo basin. We are in a climate crisis, and that means that no new coal and gas should be funded. Continuing to give fossil fuel companies handouts when people are struggling to pay rent and to buy their groceries and other necessities is absolutely insulting, especially to the many people right across the country who've seen their homes and their communities devastated this year by unprecedented flooding events. This is actually insulting to them. These weather events will only get worse, and the government is directly contributing to this by funding the fossil fuel projects that they've outlined in this budget. Labor's first budget is introducing a new handout for the gas industry through the $1.9 billion to build a gas terminal and petrochemical hub in Darwin Harbour that would guarantee a customer for the Beetaloo basin. Beetaloo is a climate-wrecking project that cannot continue and that absolutely cannot be funded through public money. The government has already given billions of dollars to this project, and in this budget we saw $1.9 billion more. This is absolutely unacceptable. Fracking in the Beetaloo basin will destroy our environment, wreck our climate and use up the precious groundwater in the Northern Territory. The sheer amount of water that fracking uses cannot be underestimated. It is estimated that one pad alone uses 11.2 billion litres of water. That is almost a quarter of the entire surface water that is used in the Northern Territory in one year—and there are 27 of these pads proposed at just one of the approximately 20 properties that are impacted by this project in the Beetaloo. Despite what the gas-funded CSIRO fact sheets might say, methane and fracking definitely contribute to climate change, and we heard about that yesterday during question time when I asked the minister, Minister Wong, about this fact sheet and, in fact, the misleading information that was included in there. Just the gas field in the Beetaloo basin could release up to 117 million tonnes of CO2, and we have been warned that there might not be enough carbon credits to offset the emissions from Beetaloo. In other words, we will blow any chance of Labor achieving their 43 per cent emission reduction target, at least without some dodgy accounting like what we saw from the previous government. In fact, as you would expect, if Beetaloo is allowed to continue it will increase Australia's 2020 emissions level by 13 per cent, and we can't afford this increase. We don't have the time to see an increase in climate emissions. We don't have time for Labor to do the bidding with their mates in the gas industry because, let's be real, this is exactly what is happening. This is an act of a government that is too scared to stand up to these companies that are destroying our planet. The resources minister herself has said that if the projects were not financially able to stand on their own two feet there should not be any government injection of cash into them, yet this is exactly what we are seeing in this budget. This amendment simply asks the government to stick to their word. Origin has stepped away from this project. They saw the writing on the wall. Whilst this is a win, it has sold its interests in this project to Tamboran Resources. This is a company that refused to appear before a Senate committee and only did so when they were about to be held in contempt of parliament, a company that has no issue taking legal action when decisions don't go their way, a company that only cares about one thing—that is, about making money for its shareholders and its executives. In a recent hearing we heard Tamboran Resources describe the Beetaloo Basin as 'Australia's greatest emissions reduction opportunity'. Believe that. What a joke. Our greatest emissions reduction opportunity is to remove public funding from fossil fuel projects, invest that money into renewables, and commit to no more new coal and gas projects in this country. This project is directly linked to the Middle Arm harbour project, a toxic petrochemical plant that is only three kilometres away from Palmerston in the pristine area of Darwin. This plant poses a health risk due to its pollution. It could increase air pollution in the area by over 500 per cent and increase the Northern Territory's emissions by 75 per cent. Now, this to me does not seem like climate action. What about you? Tamboran have stated that it intends to use the gas from the Beetaloo in the Middle Arm industry hub, which also happened to get a nice little pile of cash in this budget. Now, the science is clear. It has been clear for quite some time, and we know exactly what we need to do. Unfortunately, we are yet to see a government with the political will to do this, and this inaction will impact on, in fact, all of us. The last election was very clear. What we heard from the Australian public was they want change, they want climate action and they are growing tired of the major parties and their inaction, and last night's budget is in fact proof of that. This money to prop up a dying industry flies in the face of that clear message. Traditional owners have also sent a clear message: they do not want fracking on their country. You cannot silence the voices of traditional owners for corporate interests. You cannot ignore the traditional owners' sovereignty over their land and their sacred water to support climate-destroying gas projects in this country. If this project contaminates the groundwater it will destroy those communities surrounding that area—their connection to this country and their cultural heritage, their bush foods, the places they take their children—because that water is sacred to them. This government has claimed that it is committed to First Nations justice. In fact, they talk about the voice in this parliament. How about listening to the voices of traditional owners when they say they don't want these projects on their country? Our voices and our stories—only when it does not conflict with them making money, do they want to listen. This project has strong opposition from the traditional owners, the farmers, the environmentalists, the scientists, the general public and members of this crossbench, so when will this Labor government listen and catch up? 10:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'd like to thank all of the senators who've contributed to the debate on the Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, the Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023. These additional supply bills seek authority from the parliament for the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for, broadly, the last seven months of 2022-23. The total of the appropriations sought through these three additional supply bills is just under $59 billion. The bills must be passed in this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of 2022-23, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. The appropriations proposed in these bills provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-2023 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 budget estimates and adjusted for a small number of programs and entities that received more than five-twelfths of their annual appropriations in the 2022-23 supply acts. I wish to emphasise that these bills seek only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year. Therefore, no new decisions taken in the October 2022 budget are included these bills. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes, including Senate estimates hearings, to be followed, prior to the enactment of the October budget appropriation bills by the parliament. I note that the Greens have moved a second reading amendment. Labor will not support that amendment. Once again, I thank all senators for their contributions and commend these bills to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 An amendment has been circulated in the name of Senator McKim. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:46]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 17 10:51 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1689: (1) Page 6 (after line 1), at the end of Part 2, add: 9A Beetaloo Basin Drilling Program No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on the Beetaloo Basin Drilling Program referred to on page 41 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2022-23 for the Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio, which was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 25 October 2022. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 The amendment is framed as a request because it is to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government. Sta tement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 As this is a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of government within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate. 10:51 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government will not be supporting the amendment circulated and moved by Senator Cox. The $30 million appropriated for 2022-23 for the Beetaloo drilling program is money that was contractually committed by the previous government. The Albanese government has committed to not review the Beetaloo drilling program. 10:52 Senato 243273 South Australia r RUSTON (—) (): This amendment would mean that no funding could be spent on the Beetaloo basin drilling program which provides entities incorporated in Australia with funding to accelerate exploration and appraisal of activities in the Beetaloo basin. Sadly, this is typical of the Greens: in a budget delivered by Labor that shows that gas prices and energy prices will rise, they want to reduce the supply of gas. The Northern Territory Beetaloo basin is one of the largest undeveloped onshore gas resources in the world. The development of this resource has the potential to create 6,000 jobs by 2040, transform the Northern Territory's economy and supply gas into domestic markets for decades to come. It is disappointing that the Greens are so detached from reality that they continue to talk down a vital Australian industry that provides jobs and funds services across the country and will assist Australia's energy supply into the future. 10:53 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania We're very disappointed at the response from the Labor Party on this. Millions of Australians voted for change at this last election. This is why we have a progressive alliance in this parliament: to actually act on the key challenges of our time, like climate change. While people around this country, including in my home state of Tasmania, are preparing for another flood event after more record rainfalls, what do we see in this budget? More public money for fossil fuel projects—for the Beetaloo basin and the Northern Territory gas hub. There is over $40 billion across the budget for fossil fuel subsidies. This is not what Australians voted for. Australians voted for change and it's clear from this budget that was delivered last night that they're just going to have to wait a little bit longer before the Labor Party wakes up and realises that we are in a climate emergency and that we need to do everything we can to reduce emissions. It is insanity in this day and age in a climate crisis to be giving more taxpayers' money to fossil fuel projects. Absolutely that's what this amendment is there to do—it's to remove taxpayers' money to fund fossil fuel projects, to pour more petrol on the fire. Communities around Australia are looking at these temperature and weather records being broken every day. Just this week, Sydney recorded its highest annual rainfall on record. It's expected in the next few weeks that records will be broken across Victoria. In Tasmania, two of our key rivers had record flood levels just last week. Australians have woken up to this. When is this government going to wake up to it as well? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 The question is that the request for amendment be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [10:59]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 19 11:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 19

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022

Second Reading 19 11:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales To those who perpetrate family and domestic violence: it is the government's view that providing a universal national entitlement to this benefit would not be in line with community expectations. However, this Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 will have a very significant impact. Over one million employees already have access to paid family and domestic violence leave through collective bargaining between workers and employers, and we know the impact that this entitlement can have. But by embedding this entitlement into the national employment standards, this legislation will take this figure from just over one million employees to 11 million employees. This legislation will not end domestic violence. This is a much, much bigger task and there is so much more to do but it is a very important step that will save lives, because no worker should ever have to choose between their safety and their income. No worker should ever have to choose between income and medical treatment. Every worker in Australia has the right to be safe at work and safe at home. I want to thank the survivors and their advocates. I want to thank experts and frontline workers who have advocated for so long for this reform. I see that Samantha Parker is up there with her comrades and colleagues from the ASU in the gallery. I want to acknowledge the Australian Services Union, which represents frontline workers who help women fleeing domestic violence every day. Samantha Parker and her colleagues were there at the beginning, advocating and arguing for this reform, and they have been joined by many others. I want to acknowledge all those stakeholders, those willing people who put their shoulders to it and built the case for this bill year after year, decade after decade. Preventing family violence is everyone's business. It is long overdue for the Australian government to show leadership in this way, and I am so proud to support this bill. 11:06 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. I want to acknowledge every Australian woman who has ever left a violent relationship and add my voice to this important issue that affects so many, too many in fact, as we heard by women even in this chamber yesterday—and thank you to Senator Green in particular for sharing her story, which is similar to mine and to many other women other women and children who are exposed to violence in their homes and in their communities. This bill makes some changes that seem very simple. It increases family and domestic violence leave from five days unpaid to 10 days paid, regardless if you are full-time, part-time of a casual worker, and extends the definition of family and domestic violence. But make no mistake, these changes will have an enormous impact on those who need it. Many people who are victim survivors of family and domestic violence may not be able to afford to take five days of unpaid leave. They might be in a relationship, be single parents, or suffering from an abusive ex, family member or current partner, and, in First Nations communities, this also extends to our kinship groups. We do not consider ourselves in isolation but as members of a wider kinship group or community, where violence can be experienced and the impact of that is far reaching. The truth is there are many ways family and domestic violence can take place and no instances are the same. For First Nations women, we know that the statistics are vastly different. We are 35 times more likely to experience domestic violence, and the cost of that is actually $2.2 billion per year. Before entering this parliament, I worked in the women's sector and, indeed, after that, I have heard from numerous forums and first-hand from women across the country who have told me about the barriers to escaping violence and the immediate impact on their participation in the workforce. They include accessing crisis services, accommodation, legal services and health and medical services. The indirect psychological impacts incurred by women and children of that violence include pain, fear and suffering. Replacing damaged household items and school equipment, changing schools and the settlement of a partner's bad debt not only take time but carry a cost. The cost is not counted. We should also extend that to the cost of loss of opportunity, loss of employment and promotion opportunities, and the loss of quality of life due to being in or leaving a violent relationship. I'm a member of the Senate inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children, and we've heard just this week that particularly First Nations women are up to 12 times more likely to be murdered, which means they're disproportionally overrepresented compared to other Australian women. Violence against First Nations women is significantly underreported and underpoliced, carrying a range of issues for participating in those legal processes, which also makes the evidentiary requirements for proof of violence occurring as one of the biggest barriers to accessing their leave entitlements. Whilst this bill will save lives by providing a circuit breaker in the system for women's safety, we know that, on top of all the other challenges in reducing gender based violence, there are still racial biases that must be dismantled and culturally appropriate measures to be taken before First Nations women will actually not be at a higher risk but also to make workplaces safe places to disclose. The Greens have moved several amendments to this bill, the first to broaden the definition of 'family and domestic violence' for further clarity and to ensure that victims-survivors get the support that they actually need. The second allows for up to four days of unpaid leave to be taken on top of the 10 days of paid leave. This acknowledges that 10 days might actually not be enough, and indeed it is best practice that the minimum standard be 14 days, which my colleague Senator Waters has outlined. Finally, there's an amendment to insert a provision into the Fair Work Act that makes experiencing or having experienced family and domestic violence a protected attribute, which will help prevent potential workplace discrimination against an employee who discloses their situation. In fact, all of these amendments have been called for by stakeholders, and I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Waters, as our portfolio holder, through the inquiry into this bill. We need to listen to the experts in this area about what's needed to end family and domestic violence. In my concluding remarks I want to say that paid family and domestic violence leave will help victims-survivors to leave potentially violent and abusive situations, but we also need to address the causal factors of this. We need to address the intergenerational trauma that people are carrying with them as survivors of family and domestic violence. As a mother of two daughters these are important issues that require specific targeted resources to help heal and prevent violence experienced by women but also the impact on their children. Girls need an opportunity to thrive in the future. We need to address the underlying factors that lead to this abuse. We need to educate people about what respectful relationships look like. We need to address poverty and access to basic necessities, such as housing, which play a pivotal role in reducing violence in our communities. It is, in fact, our job in this place to ensure that we use our political will and our capital to make those life-altering changes to preserve, value and respect the lives of women. In First Nations communities across this country we continue to ask questions like: how many more of our women, who are mothers and grandmothers, must die before our efforts in this place are clearly just not enough? Until we show the courage and the bravery that we applaud in our victims-survivors to address the underlying causes of gender based violence very little will change. All too often, under the current scheme, people are forced to choose between their job, their income and their safety, and this is not a choice that anyone should have to make. 11:13 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 and I'm proud to be part of a government that introduced this bill as one of its first bills to this parliament. In the years to come it will be seen as one of the, hopefully, many great achievements of the Albanese-Labor government. Make no mistake: this bill will save lives. I want my fellow senators to think about this fact as they listen to the debate today and consider how they will vote. Domestic violence is a shame to our nation. Family and domestic violence affects people from all walks of life, in every community, in every city and in every region across this country. The statistics are harrowing. Since the age of 15 approximately one in four women has experienced at least one incidence of violence by an intimate partner. About 2.2 million Australians have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Indigenous women are 35 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence than non-Indigenous women. Horrifically, on average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. For many women, the most dangerous place in Australia is their own home, a place where they should, at an absolute minimum, be able to feel safe. In the 10 years from mid-2002 to mid-2012, 488 women in Australia were killed by an intimate partner, representing 75 per cent of the total of 654 victims killed by an intimate partner. Sadly, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in the prevalence of family and domestic violence. Getting out of domestic violence situations is hard. I empathise with anyone in that situation and truly hope that this bill provides some support to make it easier to get out. Frontline workers have told us there are two issues at the forefront of the minds of women seeking to escape from violent relationships. First, they are worried about the disruption to the lives of their children. Second, they are worried about the disruption to their income and employment. Many can't leave violent situations without risking joblessness, financial stress, homelessness and poverty, so it leaves workers with nowhere to go, having to choose between their safety and their livelihood. For those who don't believe this is an issue for the workplace, you are very, very wrong. More than 68 per cent of people experiencing family and domestic violence are in paid work. Women experiencing family and domestic violence earn 35 per cent less than those who do not, and it disproportionately affects women, who are more likely to be casual or part time. The cost to the national economy is huge, with estimates ranging between $12.6 billion and $22 billion per year. Employers are bearing significant costs, up to $2 billion a year, in the form of reduced productivity caused by absenteeism, and recruitment and retraining costs. Paid family and domestic violence leave will assist to reduce this cost. Our legislation extends the Fair Work Commission's recent preliminary review by introducing a right to 10 days paid leave for all eligible employees covered by the national employment standards, including rostered casuals at the employee's full rate of pay. Excluding casuals altogether would have left 2.6 million employees, or 22.8 per cent of all employees, without this protection. It provides further incentive for employers to prefer casuals over permanent jobs. We have also extended the definition of family and domestic violence to include conduct of a member of an employee's household to recognise that Australians are living a more diverse and different arrangements. This new entitlement will take effect on 1 February 2023 for businesses other than small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, and on 1 August 2023 for small businesses, in recognition that they have limited human resources and payroll capabilities. The government will also be consulting on a package of implementation support measures for small business to assist with rolling out this entitlement. This bill is good policy, and those that work closely with the victims of domestic violence are clear as to its need. Before I finish, I would like to take a quick moment to outline how to access support services for anyone in my home state of Tasmania. If you are listening in Tasmania and need support and counselling for domestic and family violence, you can contact the Family Violence Counselling and Support Service on 1800608122. This service operates between 9 am and midnight on weekdays and between 4 pm and midnight on weekends and public holidays. In conclusion, I will just say this: as a nation, we can and must do better. This bill is one way that we can do better, so I encourage all my Senate colleagues to support this bill. 11:19 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia This is a historic day as we debate this historic bill before us. It's historic because the fight for the measures contained within this bill has been raging for a long time, from frontline workers, our union movement, gender equality advocates, civil society and women. It's historic because it will make a real difference to the lives of some of those in our community whose voices have been silenced, unheard, for far too long. The statistics of family violence are too familiar to us all. We know that, on average, one woman every 10 days in Australia is killed by an intimate partner. Women aren't the only victims of family and domestic violence—of course not—but we know that, disproportionately, they experience family violence so much more than men. Since the age of 15, approximately one in four women will have experienced at least once instance of violence by an intimate partner. These statistics are horrific, but of course they're not just statistics. I'm sure almost all of us in this chamber would know someone who's experienced family violence or would have experienced family violence themselves. These are people we know, people we love and people we care for. While this bill doesn't stop or solve family violence it will make a difference. It introduces 10 days of paid leave for employees to use to deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence. Critically, it's paid at the rate of pay you would actually earn, whether in full-time employment, part-time employment or casual employment. This is critically important—it's a really important part of this bill—because, to start with, women are more likely to be the victims of violence and they're also more likely to be those in casual work. We don't ever want women in Australia to be in the situation where they have to choose between a day's pay, between their livelihood, and between getting help and getting out of a dangerous situation. Fundamentally, that's what this bill is about: supporting those in our community at a critical point in their life, when this support could be at least life-changing but probably live-saving. I'm really proud of this bill and I'm really proud to be part of a government that prioritises women's safety and equality. Of course it doesn't do everything. The National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children was released last week. This outlines a clear blueprint for the next 10 years. This plan contains an ambitious target, as it should, to end gender based violence in one generation. It also includes tangible actions, including addressing gender discrimination, implementing prevention strategies, embedding effective early intervention approaches and building the frontline sector workforce to ensure women and children can access tailored and culturally safe support no matter where they live. These are some real, tangible measures to be rolled out alongside the bill before us. But make no mistake: just because this bill doesn't do everything it doesn't mean it won't make a tremendous difference, and it doesn't mean that it won't change lives and save lives. So I very much commend the bill to the Senate and I would hope it is something that we can all get behind and support. 11:22 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. In opposition, Labor promised to provide 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave to all employees. As one of our first legislative acts in government we are doing exactly that. I'd like to thank the Deputy Chair of the Education and Employment Committee, Senator O'Sullivan, and the secretariat of the committee for their strong engagement on the inquiry into this bill. In that inquiry not a single stakeholder that made a submission or appeared at a hearing said that this was a bad idea—not a single one—because everyone recognised just how important this is. The statistics are shocking. From the age of 15, one in four women and one in 13 men experience violence by an intimate partner. On average, one woman is killed by a current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. Paid leave enables those experiencing violence to access support services before it's too late. As Samantha Parker, a frontline women's service worker and Australian Services Union organiser, told the Senate committee inquiry into this bill: Paid domestic and violence leave allows women the opportunity to leave abusive relationships safely. These reforms will save lives. I want to commend the activists and survivors who have campaigned for paid family and domestic violence leave over many years. I also want to commend the community and trade union movement, which have fought tooth and nail against opposition from some in the employer lobby for this entitlement. I particularly want to acknowledge the Australian Services Union, which has been instrumental in this fight, including former ASU New South Wales secretary Sally McManus, Natalie Lang, current secretary Angus McFarland and current deputy secretary Judith Wright. Just like weekends, the 40-hour week, the minimum wage, annual leave, sick leave, parental leave, penalty rates, superannuation, workers compensation, unfair dismissal laws and redundancy pay, none of these entitlements were gifted by employers or conservative governments. Every single one of these benefits was fought for and won by the community, trade unions and countless union members and organisers across the country. Today there is a new entitlement to add to that list: paid family and domestic violence leave. The usual suspects and employer lobby groups like the Australian Industry Group showed up to the inquiry into the bill and complained. They complained that businesses shouldn't have to pay for their employees to get paid leave to assess potentially life-saving support. Isn't it funny that the big businesses that fund these lobby groups never want to put their own names to the reprehensible policy positions they lobby for? We will see it again this week when the Ai Group and chamber of commerce campaign against Labor's reforms to grow wages and improve job security. The large companies, such as Qantas, that fund these groups are too ashamed to run these campaigns in their own name. But the fact is that this leave entitlement will not only provide vital support to people experiencing violence; it will also deliver productivity benefits. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre estimates that this reform will deliver net savings for employers through increased productivity and reduced absenteeism. This is just the first of a number of reforms that will improve the lives of Australian workers, especially women workers, and help with cost-of-living pressures and job insecurity, particularly in feminised industries. The government has already introduced legislation to the House that will massively expand childcare subsidies for Australian families, enabling parents to get back into work sooner. Another government bill already introduced to the House will implement all the remaining legislative recommendations of the Respect@Work report. In the budget just handed down last night the Albanese government extended paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 26 weeks, another massive reform for working families. Later this week the government will introduce a bill that makes four significant improvements to gender equity in the workplace. It includes banning pay secrecy clauses—a practice that employers use to prevent workers, particularly women workers, from learning how they've been discriminated against. It includes making gender equity an explicit objective of the Fair Work Act. It includes establishing new expert panels of the Fair Work Commission to address pay equity and undervalued work in the care sector. It also includes giving the commission greater power to order pay increases in low-paid usually highly feminised industries through equal remuneration principles. Together these reforms represent the greatest strides towards gender equality at work in generations. The initial fight over equal pay was won in 1969 with a meat workers union's successful equal pay case at the arbitration commission. But, over 50 years later, equal pay for equal work has still not become a reality for Australian women. These reforms by the Albanese government mean gender equity at work can finally be realised. It is really disappointing that, after nine years of sending workers' wages and rights backwards, opposition by the Liberals and Nationals has already confirmed that they will be opposing many of those reforms. I think it's time that those opposite and their mates in the employer lobby cut out the old class war nonsense and got onboard with Labor's pro-wages and pro-women agenda—an agenda that is also delivering critical support for women and men experiencing domestic and family violence. 11:29 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. Many of the contributions were not easy speeches for people to give. Where there have been different views on the best way forward, those views have been put very respectfully. I also thank honourable senators on the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into the provisions of this bill. This bill is an important step towards making sure no person is denied the opportunity to live a life free of family and domestic violence simply because they cannot afford to escape. This government believes in the fundamental right of all employees in this country to feel safe in their homes and in their workplaces. The choice between their safety and their income is an impossible one that millions of workers in Australia still regularly face. This is unacceptable, and it must change. This bill will provide employees with 10 days of paid leave each year to deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence. Family and domestic violence doesn't discriminate based on whether you're a permanent or a casual worker; in fact, those experiencing family and domestic violence are more likely to be in casual work. This paid leave will therefore be available to full-time, part-time and casual employees. The 10 days leave will be provided upfront, allowing immediate access to the full entitlement from the commencement of employment so that those experiencing family and domestic violence can deal immediately with its effects without compromising their income security. Rather than being paid at the base rate of pay, leave will be paid at the rate the employee would have received had they not taken leave. The principle behind this is simple—getting out shouldn't mean losing pay. Normally, leave entitlements are calculated at the base rate of pay, but applying the principle 'getting out shouldn't mean losing pay' requires a different approach. To provide certainty to both employers and employees about the pay they should receive, casual employees will be paid for rostered shifts, including where a shift has been offered and accepted. Casuals who are not rostered on will still be entitled to leave without pay when they need to be unavailable for work to deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence. This means they will always be protected from losing their jobs when they need to take leave. When they are rostered on, the paid leave entitlement will be there. The bill also reflects the changing nature of Australian society, where more people have diverse living situations. The bill amends the definition of 'family and domestic violence' to ensure violent or abusive behaviour in intimate relationships, regardless of whether partners are cohabiting, will be covered to allow employees to take paid leave to seek necessary assistance. The government will move two amendments in the Senate, making technical changes to the Fair Work Act to enable the making of regulations that specifically prevent the listing of 'family and domestic violence leave' on a employee's payslip, and making technical updates to the Fair Work Commission's new dispute resolution mechanism in relation to existing enterprise agreements. The government listened to stakeholder concerns around payslips, including concerns raised by small business, payroll providers and the National Women's Alliances. We recognise that, for those in situations of coercive control or where a perpetrator has access to their partner's financial records, the appearance of 'family and domestic violence leave' on a payslip could put the employee taking leave at risk. The other amendment responds to the Fair Work Commission's submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. This amendment is needed to ensure the provisions operate as intended. Support for small business is essential. The intention of this bill is to make clear that family and domestic violence must be addressed in the workplace, not just left to the social and community or criminal justice sectors. As such, it is important to recognise that employers are partners in this process. This is particularly true for small businesses, which have a uniquely close relationship with their employees but which don't have the human resources expertise and resources available to larger businesses. The entitlement has a phased commencement to assist business to implement this entitlement. Most businesses would have around six months from the date of introduction, and small businesses will have an additional six months to prepare. The small business assistance package announced in the budget provides $3.4 million over four years to deliver a range of holistic supports to help small businesses implement paid family and domestic violence leave, including: updating and increasing resources for workplace relations advice and education tools delivered by the Fair Work Ombudsman; funding to support peak bodies to develop tailored workplace relations guidance and support; and, in addition, specialist family and domestic violence information support and training through the existing 1800RESPECT and DV-alert program will also be available to small businesses so that they can assist victim-survivors to access support services. Together, these measures will ensure that small businesses can access the right advice at the right time to provide the best support to their employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence. Passing this bill is an important step, but the government recognises that we need to make sure this leave entitlement is working for both employers and workers who are experiencing family and domestic violence. An important part of this will be looking at how this leave entitlement is supporting workers who are experiencing family and domestic violence, and whether the supporting guidance the government will provide to businesses is adequate. The government is therefore committed to implementing the recommendation of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee to undertake an independent review of the provisions of this bill 18 months after its commencement. This important review has been expressly funded through the budget's small business assistance package. The review will assess the effectiveness and scope of the bill, along with assessing the adequacy of the support and guidance available to businesses to assist with implementation of the bill. The government has already committed to a detailed, timely and extensive review of the provisions. Therefore we do not support the opposition's amendment for an independent review, which is both unnecessary and poorly designed, noting that it does not refer to assessing the impact of the amendment on victim-survivors; only puts six months of operation for small business in scope; and imposes a three-month reporting deadline, which is insufficient to undertake qualitative and quantitative research while applying a sensitive trauma informed methodology. There are several issues that have been raised during debate on this bill and in the Senate inquiry that are important to address. There have been some concerns that the bill may also provide leave to perpetrators of family and domestic violence. Others have called for the leave to be expanded so that perpetrators who are seeking professional help can then access this leave. To be entirely clear: an employee will only be able to take this leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence. An employee cannot take paid family and domestic violence leave provided by the bill for violence that they themselves perpetrate. The government is aware that some jurisdictions and organisations offer leave for perpetrators in certain circumstances. That may assist some perpetrators who are seeking to change their abusive behaviour but it is not the purpose of this bill, which is intended to aid those experiencing family and domestic violence to seek help and leave. The entitlement does not provide a benefit to those who perpetrate family and domestic violence, and it is the government's view that providing a universal national entitlement to this benefit would not be in line with community expectations. I note suggestions from the opposition and the Australian Greens to ensure that information, resources and supports are available for small business and victims-survivors for commencement of this entitlement. The government has been consulting on a small business assistance package. This will ensure that clear and comprehensive guidance is available to employers to help them to understand their obligations and to refer their employees to appropriate supports. Honourable senators have proposed other amendments including further expanding the definition of 'family and domestic violence', providing additional unpaid leave on top of paid leave, combining family and domestic violence leave with compassionate leave to create a new form of emergency leave, expanding the definition of 'discrimination' under the Fair Work Act, expanding the examples in a legislative note under 106B(1), providing discretion for additional leave in advance by agreement and clarifying the reporting obligations for employees with respect to paid family and domestic violence leave. The government does not support these amendments. Some are unnecessary. Others would expand the scope of the legislation. It is important to get the balance right. The legislation in front of us is world leading. We are taking a step that hasn't been taken by any other government around the world, but we don't want to take the scope further than we have. Everything we've done so far has been based on that very simple test of making sure that workers are not choosing between safety and their pay. An independent review of the provisions of this bill will occur in 2024 which will look at the effectiveness and scope of the bill along with assessing the adequacy of support and guidance available to business. Paid family and domestic violence leave joins the range of tools available to address violence against women and children. This government acknowledges the resistance and resilience of victims-survivors of family and domestic violence and is committed to providing the national leadership and investment needed to address family and domestic violence. This is demonstrated through the government's October 2022-23 budget which invested a total of $1.7 billion over six years for women's safety because ending violence against women and children is a national priority. This investment will support the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 which will guide efforts and actions over the next decade towards the vision of ending gender based violence in one generation. This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of family and domestic violence. There is much more work to be done. But it does mean that no employee in Australia will ever be forced to reckon with a choice between earning a wage and protecting the safety of themselves and their family. I thank all senators who have spoken in this debate for their support of this historic legislation, and I commend the bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Honourable senators, two second reading amendments have been circulated. The first is from Senator Cash, who has already moved it, and then there is one from Senator Waters, who will move it subsequently. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:50 The PRESIDENT 112096 We will now move to the second reading amendment as signalled by Senator Waters. I invite you to move that, Senator Waters. 11:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the availability of paid family and domestic violence leave will allow more victim-survivors to access frontline services for advice and support, and (ii) specialist frontline services will assist employers to implement the paid family and domestic violence leave scheme by providing advice and training, and options for referring affected workers; and (b) acknowledges that frontline family and domestic violence services are already stretched beyond capacity and will require additional funding to meet existing and increased demand and ensure victim-survivors receive the support they need". Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 26 11:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move amendments RU110 and PF105 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 4), after item 21, insert: 21A After paragraph 536(2)(b) Insert: ; and (c) not include any information prescribed by the regulations in relation to paid family and domestic violence leave. (2) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (lines 1 to 7), omit subsection 757B(4), substitute: Extended paid family and domestic violence leave provisions (4) The extended paid family and domestic violence leave provisions are: (a) the provisions of Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2, and the related provisions identified in subsection (3) of this section, as they apply because of this section; and (b) section 757BA. Modifications are set out in Subdivision B of this Division (4A) The extended paid family and domestic violence leave provisions have effect subject to the modifications provided for in Subdivision B. (3) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (after line 11), after section 757B, insert: 757BA Employer obligations in relation to pay slips If an employer gives a person a pay slip relating to paid leave to which the person is entitled because of section 757B, the employer must not include on the pay slip any information prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 536(2)(c). (1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (line 31) to page 8 (line 19), omit subclause 53(1), substitute: (1) On application by an employer, employee or employee organisation covered by a pre-commencement enterprise agreement, if: (a) the agreement includes terms entitling employees to paid family and domestic violence leave within the ordinary meaning of that expression; and (b) the FWC considers that the effect of those terms is detrimental when compared with the entitlement under Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2 as amended by Schedule 1 to the amending Act (the NES entitlement); the FWC may make a determination varying the agreement to make the agreement consistent with the NES entitlement. 11:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I understand that there is a time imperative in relation to the bill and that we will hit a hard marker at 12:15. I therefore will endeavour to get as many questions on the record as possible, and I would seek to work with the minister in that respect. Minister, you will be aware that, in relation to the decision of the Fair Work Commission, there are three parts of this bill that go beyond what the provisional decision was. The bill was examined in the committee, and during that committee process there were a number of questions that were asked on behalf of, in particular, small businesses around Australia, and adequate information was not provided. In terms of the questions I would like to put to you, I will give you a heads up to the topic so that the department and your office can provide you with the information. They will be in relation to the ability of perpetrators to access the leave, the reporting obligations of employers, the amendment that the government will be moving in relation to the payslips, which the opposition has indicated it will be supporting. I also have some questions in relation to the inclusion of casuals, the rate of pay and accrual. In relation to perpetrators, I will do them as a block of questions to enable you to respond in a timely fashion. At the committee hearing in relation to this matter—I do note that Senator Brown has made some further comments in her summing-up speech—the department itself, at that time, could not confirm with certainty whether perpetrators will have access to paid family and domestic leave. Can I get the minister to outline the government's position, the reason being, obviously, that people turn to the Hansard to interpret decisions that are being made? Can the minister outline the government's position clearly? In other words, is it a guarantee that perpetrators of domestic violence will not be able to access paid family and domestic violence leave under this legislation? If someone were to take paid family and domestic violence leave and were then found out to be the perpetrator of the reason for leave, what course of action does the employer then have in relation to this particular employee? Also, are they able to recoup the monies paid to the employee in accessing the leave? Are you able to take us through the safeguards the government has put in place in the legislation to ensure that it is not accessed by perpetrators? The other question that's being asked by businesses, and small businesses in particular—I note that it was also raised by the Australian Greens—is: does the government agree with the suggestion that perpetrators should be able to access paid family and domestic violence leave to attend counselling on how not to commit domestic violence? That's the block of questions, so could I get your response to them for the Hansard? Thank you. 11:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I do have some answers to some of the questions that you've posed and I might just get some further advice on a couple of the other more specific aspects. What I'm advised is that, to access the leave entitlement under the Fair Work Act, an employee may take family and domestic violence leave only if they are experiencing family and domestic violence. The government is aware that some jurisdictions and organisations offer leave for perpetrators in certain circumstances. This is not the purpose of this bill, which is intended to aid those experiencing family and domestic violence to seek help and leave. The entitlement does not provide a benefit to those who perpetrate family and domestic violence, and it is the government's view that providing a universal national entitlement to this benefit would not be in line with community expectations. I know there were a couple of additional questions. I'll see if I've got any further advice for you on those. What I'm advised in terms of the ability of employers to recoup leave that is, if you like, incorrectly paid to a perpetrator, is that there are existing provisions under the legislation to recoup payments and take other action for fraudulent claims. Those powers would exist in these circumstances as well. Does that cover off each of those questions? 11:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll accept those answers because I think they do properly now articulate the position that employers can then look to. Could I put another block of questions to you? It is in relation to reporting obligations—again, in particular for small and family businesses, who don't have the huge HR departments; it will be mum-and-dad businesses who are reviewing the Fair Work Act and wondering where to go. This is one that has been consistently raised, even despite the Senate committee looking into the matter itself. Again for the benefit of the Hansard record: when an employee accesses family and domestic violence leave, what reporting obligations does an employer have to inform authorities? What small and family businesses in particular have requested is if you can guarantee that no employer will be liable should their employee access family and domestic violence leave and then the employer fails to report it to authorities. What safeguards are in place in the legislation to ensure that employers cannot be held liable when an employee accesses family and domestic violence leave and they do or do not report it and there was the opposite obligation? I'll now turn to people who work from home. If an employee works from home, for all or part of their employment, and then accesses paid family and domestic violence leave, what obligations does this put on the employer in terms of providing a safe workplace? Changing topics slightly here, if an employee is under 18 and accesses family and domestic violence leave, does this fact change the reporting obligations for the employer? If an employer reports to the police that their employee has access to family and domestic violence leave against the wishes of the employee, will the employer be subject to penalties for going against the wishes of the employee? What guidance has or will the department provide to employers in relation to the reporting obligations? 12:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The bill does not place any reporting obligations on employers. Any reporting obligations arising under state or territory laws are not prohibited by the bill. State or territory laws such as those that apply to some workers mandating the reporting of suspected abuse of children would not be affected. However, the current section 106C of the act provides an exemption to the confidentiality obligation where the disclosure is required by an Australian law or is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the employee or another person. So there is a degree of protection in there for employers. In addition to information available on state and territory websites, you'd be aware, Senator Cash, that 1800RESPECT and the Australian Institute of Family Studies also provide information on mandatory reporting on their websites, and I'd encourage employers to take that up. I'm looking at the departmental officials now, but, based on that information, I would assume that the same rules apply in relation to work-from-home employees or employees under the age of 18 as exist more generally. So, everything that I've said already applies to those employees as well. As I've sort of implied, for employees under the age of 18, there may be particular obligations in relation to mandatory reporting of suspected abuse of those children. But the same exemption for the confidentiality obligation and the other things that I've already said apply in that situation, too. 12:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll turn now to another topic, that is, prescribing the payslips, and it's in relation to one of the amendments that the government has moved. With the payslips, how will this actually work through the businesses payroll services? How do you see it actually working? Did you have any consultation with employers prior to drafting the amendment? More importantly, though, will businesses be penalised, and, in particular, small and family businesses who, again, don't necessarily have that capacity? They don't have an HR department. They're doing it all themselves—probably on Sunday at midnight, wondering if their doors are going to open tomorrow. The point being, if they accidentally include on a payslip information that shows that the employee has accessed or taken paid family and domestic violence leave, what are the penalties the business will face? Will the government be producing guidance materials for small businesses to ensure that they are adequately informed on these issues? Would the businesses have a chance to rectify payslips that do show this information, or would they immediately face penalties? Any businesses, but often small businesses, will actually outsource their payroll, for example, to an external accountant. Who would then be responsible—the small business or the external accountant—in the event that, on the payslip, it states family and domestic violence leave? 12:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There are a few questions in there, Senator Cash, but I'll do my best to answer them. If I've understood your questions correctly, they relate to the amendment the government has moved around pay slips. This amendment makes technical changes to the Fair Work Act which provide legislative support to amend the Fair Work Regulations to prevent the listing of family and domestic violence leave on an employee's pay slip. This amendment arises from issues that were raised in the consultation process. Why this matters is that, for those in a situation of coercive control or where a perpetrator has access to a victim's financial records, the appearance of 'family and domestic violence leave' on a pay slip could put the employee taking leave at significant risk. Currently, the Fair Work Act does not allow items to be prohibited from appearing on a pay slip. It only prescribes what must be included. So this amendment is needed to ensure that a prohibition on showing an employee's family and domestic violence leave balance on a pay slip can be added to the Fair Work Regulations. You raised a point about consultation. As part of consultation on the bill, the government consulted with payroll providers and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, who raised this issue as a concern. Submissions to the Senate inquiry, such as that from the National Women's Safety Alliance, also flagged pay slips as a point of concern. I acknowledge that this has been a particular issue of interest to Senator Lambie. That is what has led to us making this amendment. I hope I have at least mostly answered your questions. 12:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to explore one other part that, again, has been raised by businesses. In the first instance, will they have a chance to rectify the pay slip, or will they face an immediate penalty? Also in relation to outsourcing, would it be the small business or the outsourced company that is responsible for the mistake? If a worker has taken paid family and domestic violence leave and works at home occasionally, would this then create an issue under work health and safety laws for the employer? 12:07 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland While the minister is seeking advice, I will chime in because I fear that otherwise I might miss my opportunity entirely, given that we hit the hard marker at 12.15. Can I just point out that the Greens will be supporting both of the amendments that the government has just moved. One is a technical fix that relates to the National Employment Standards. The other is an important change about pay slips, which the opposition is now asking about. We think that nicely treads the line between respecting the safety and privacy of workers who are experiencing family and domestic violence and maintaining the need to call this 'family and domestic violence leave', which will help to destigmatise the fact that this is rampant in society—and we need to change that. For the record, we won't be supporting the Jacqui Lambie Network amendments, because we don't agree that we should call this something that it is not. This is not emergency leave; it is family and domestic violence leave. I'm being handed at this very moment a fresh amendment which I have not had the chance to digest. I'm told that the government is talking with the Jacqui Lambie Network about this amendment. I look forward to the opportunity to actually read that amendment and form a view on whether or not it's a useful change in relation to protecting women and ensuring that women don't have to choose between their job and their safety. While I'm on my feet I might briefly outline the fact that I'll be moving our amendments en bloc. We had hoped to get this bill done in the last parliamentary sittings and did our level best to deliver that, but it looks like now we won't get the chance until perhaps later tonight, when maybe there won't be opportunities for speaking. In very brief form, we are moving some minor amendments which relate to the fact that the leave should be available not just to people who are experiencing violence but to people who have experienced family and domestic violence. We know it can take years to get the court processes to complete—often in an unsatisfactory manner, I might add—and we need to make sure also that it is clear that an employee can access leave to undertake activities that are not just inconvenient for them to do on work time, as the current bill proposes, but are unsafe for them to do other than on work time. That is another of our amendments. We've also expanded out the list of things in the note that employees specifically can ask for leave for in order to stay safe. We're moving an important amendment that relates to having an additional four days of unpaid leave on top of the 10 days of paid leave, acknowledging that it can take a long time to do the things you need to do, assuming you have the resources to do them, which is why this bill is important and also why funding for frontline services is very important. We'll be moving that amendment as well; it gets us closer to best practice. On that resourcing issue, my second reading amendment went to the fact that this bill will increase demand on frontline services. We were hoping that, in last night's budget, there would be an increase in funding for frontline services. There was a partial indexation. That is not a funding increase. There is already unmet demand for frontline services and prevention work and healing work. There is already an unmet need, and this bill, which is crucial, will increase that need. We needed to see money in the budget last night for frontline services to keep women safe and to stop the incredible number of deaths that are happening. But, in the interest of time, we didn't move that one to a vote, mistakenly thinking that we might be able to pass this bill in a timely fashion. My final amendment, which I will move when my turn comes, relates to making sure that there can be no discrimination or unfair dismissal as a result of an employee seeking to access family and domestic violence leave. When the time comes, probably at about 11 o'clock tonight with no chance to speak, I will be commending these amendments, and I would urge all parties in this parliament to deal with this bill promptly so that small businesses have the time to change whatever operations they need to change to undertake their obligations. I note with pleasure that there was an amount allocated last night in the budget to enable support for small businesses to adopt this new practice. 12:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Before I address Senator Cash's questions, I'd like to table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. In terms of the questions that Senator Cash asked—and Senator Waters, I was trying to keep an ear on what you were saying while getting the answers to these questions. I don't think there were any questions you posed in that contribution, though. Senator Waters 192970 No, except, 'What the hell is this amendment?' Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash, what I'm advised is that strictly speaking a failure by a business or payroll provider to comply with this obligation would amount to a breach of the act, but, in practice, should the employer or payroll provider take speedy action to rectify the situation, that would be taken into account by the commission. It certainly is not the intention to go around fining employers or payroll providers who may inadvertently fail to comply. On that—you asked about this earlier as well—it's certainly the department's intention to provide substantial information to small businesses to assist them to comply. We want this to work. We want people to understand the obligations. You raised workplace health and safety laws. I don't know if this is exactly addressing your query, but the bill does not create any additional workplace health and safety obligations. It doesn't alter the existing interactions between the Fair Work Act and workplace health and safety laws. Employers, of course, have a duty under workplace health and safety laws to ensure the health and safety of workers so far as is reasonably practicable while they are at work, and this includes actively managing the risk of family and domestic violence happening at the workplace. 12:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We are going to hit the hard marker shortly, so the next series of questions would be in particular in relation the inclusion of casuals. It is incredibly confusing for business, given this does go further than what the Fair Work Commission themselves have said. It does actually change the way the leave operates within the Fair Work Act itself. There were a number of questions that I had, and I don't know if we can return to them tonight. But in particular the questions that business are asking are: under clause 19 of the bill, if a casual employee gets a call asking what days they are available for the next week and then subsequently is unable to come in but has not been provided with the times, would they be entitled to payment under this bill? Under clause 19, if a casual employee gets a call asking what days they're available for the next week but then is subsequently unable to come in due to family and domestic violence leave but was not actually provided with the times, how would you actually calculate their rate of payment under this bill? If we do return to this bill, it would assist perhaps if some answers could be provided. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Order! It being 12:15, pursuant to order I now call for senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Skill Shortages 30 12:15 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Last night's budget delivers the plan the Australian people voted for. This budget is right for the times and ready for the future. Our budget will do three things: provide responsible cost-of-living relief that doesn't add to inflation, invest in the capabilities of our people and the capacity of our economy, and begin the very hard task of long-term budget repair. It's a responsible budget that starts to clean up that awful mess the Liberals left behind and begins to build the better future that the Australian people deserve. I'd like to speak today on the second point: how Labor will invest in the capabilities of our people and the capacity of our economy. Australia is facing an unprecedented skills shortage, caused by the inaction and incompetence of the nine years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Having skilled workers is vital for growing the economy and creating secure, high-paying jobs that are good for workers and their families. Particularly during this time of emerging new industries and technologies, it's vital that Australian workers have the skills to meet the challenges of the future and to position Australia to grasp the opportunities. We need to provide a path for workers to seize those opportunities with transferable skills. Working in a globalised market, we must be aware of how we and industries can maximise support for growing our domestic talent and how we can attract a skilled workforce. According to the OECD, Australia is experiencing the second most severe labour shortages in the developed world. Labor understands this. Labor is acting. That's why last night's budget invests in the capabilities of our people and the capacity of our economy to boost productivity, grow the economy and get wages moving again. Together with the states and territories, we are making a $1 billion investment in fee-free TAFE and vocational education places. We are providing 180,000 places next year, the first stage in our plan for nearly half a million fee-free TAFE places for Australians to learn skills for jobs in priority areas like the care sectors and the digital economy. This budget also invests more than $770 million for better schools, happier and healthier students, and more qualified teachers. We will invest $485 million to create 20,000 new university places over the next two years for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As the Treasurer said, no Australian should be denied, by poverty, by postcode or by lack of privilege, their chance at a better future. These budget announcements came after the Albanese government moved quickly to hold the recent Jobs and Skills Summit. The Jobs and Skills Summit brought together Australians including unions, employers, civil society and governments to address our shared economic challenges. As a result of the consensus reached at the summit, immediate actions will be taken to build a bigger, better-trained and more-productive workforce to help deliver secure jobs with growing wages, to boost incomes and living standards and to create more opportunities for more Australians. The summit has also laid out priorities for further work and further action. In addition to the announcements in the budget, the Australian government will legislate Jobs and Skills Australia as a priority based on tripartite governance, establish the Jobs and Skills Australia work plan in consultation with all jurisdictions and stakeholders to address workforce shortages, and build long-term capacity in priority sectors. We'll task Jobs and Skills Australia, once established, to commission a workforce capacity study on the clean energy workforce. The Australian government and the states and territories will also kickstart skill sector reform and restart discussions for a five-year national skills agreement based on guiding principles agreed by the National Cabinet and skills ministers, and develop a comprehensive blueprint with key stakeholders to support and grow a quality VET workforce. The Australian government, in partnership with states, territories and stakeholders, will also reinvigorate foundation skills programs to support workers and vulnerable Australians to gain secure employment choices; explore more options to improve the apprenticeship support system and drive up completions; include specific sub-targets for women in the Australian Skills Guarantee and ensure the guarantee includes a focus on the need for digital skills; and work together to reform the framework for VET qualifications and microcredentials to ensure they are most relevant to labour market needs. In the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit in Canberra, over 100 jobs and skills forums were held across Australia, including three in Tasmania. I attended the Hobart forum with my Labor colleagues the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Mr Leigh; the member for Lyons, Mr Brian Mitchell; and the good senator Carol Brown. It was a wonderful opportunity to hear firsthand from a wide variety of voices: businesses, civil society organisations, professional associations, employment service providers and unions. Everybody in the room was working together, not trying to kill off certain sectors, like the previous government did in trying to kill off the unions. We heard that we have a vital need to provide skills and training, especially for our young Tasmanians. Career education must include skill based occupations such as trades, transport and logistics, and care based occupations. Further, training targeting occupations which ensure the next generation—those children, those students, up in the gallery—is job ready was a key focus. One concern is that Tasmania has a shortage of education professionals, which is impacting the education of Tasmania's young people right now. We had a lot of great ideas generated about how to tackle the skills crisis, make jobs secure and get wages moving, so I do quickly want to thank all those people who were present for their ideas and suggestions, and for participating in that activity. Our current skills crisis has of course been exacerbated by COVID, but we saw signs of the looming shortage even before the pandemic hit. Whether in nursing, aged care, hospitality, construction, teaching or tech, there are skills shortages wherever we look across the economy. In my old area, early childhood education, there are skill shortages and a lack of people taking on the roles. The Skills Priority List released recently by the National Skills Commission includes 286 occupations in national shortage, up from 153 in 2021. Action should have been taken by the previous government on the shortages and the emerging shortages, but, of course, they dropped the ball in this area as in a range of other areas. But now we have a government that is willing to work with employers, education and training providers and the unions to find solutions. According to the OECD, a staggering three million adults in Australia lack the fundamental skills required to participate in training and secure work. These are skills such as basic literacy, digital literacy and numeracy, which are required to participate in our economy and, frankly, in our society. The Albanese government will explore options to address this critical issue to make sure that no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. As anyone who has listened to parliamentary debates well knows, I'm deeply passionate about TAFE. I came out of TAFE. A strong TAFE sector is crucial to a strong economy and achieving a fair society. We will restore TAFE to its rightful prominence in the training landscape, and it's crucial that we reinvigorate Australia's apprenticeship system and provide support for secure careers in trades and occupations that are in demand. We are engaging the sector to shift the focus to improving retention and completion rates and ensuring apprentices and trainees get the support they need. The Australian Skills Guarantee will ensure that one in 10 workers on major federally funded government projects is an apprentice, trainee or paid cadet, with a particular focus on supporting women through specific targets. The new energy sector is one such area of focus, and we're providing for 10,000 new energy apprenticeships. We must secure a more productive economy and help Australians get well paid and secure jobs, providing them with great opportunities. This requires leadership, planning, collaboration and working towards a shared goal if we are to be successful. At a time of low unemployment and labour shortage, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that the people who face intergenerational barriers to employment can gain transferable skills and secure jobs. Labor is more than ready to grasp this opportunity. 12:25 Senator O'S 283585 Western Australia ULLIVAN (—) (): Diversity, inclusion and blind acceptance are subjects that are regularly preached by the woke left. Unfortunately, their awakening has led them into a place of hypocrisy. They are some of the most intolerant and least accepting members of our society. The Australian Football League is now a place where a person can be vilified and all but forced out of a job. It has become a bloated multibillion-dollar goliath regularly moralising to Australians on social issues while addicted to gambling advertising and has left us all down. In less than 24 hours Mr Andrew Thorburn was hired and resigned from his position as CEO of the Essendon Bombers Football Club. Let's make this crystal clear. Mr Thorburn was admonished and publicly attacked, not for his personal but for the thoughts of someone else who delivered a sermon at his church a decade ago. He did not attend, nor was he aware of it until the woke mob called for his blood. I had the opportunity to work alongside the NAB while Mr Thorburn was the CEO of the bank. I headed the Indigenous training and employment organisation, GenerationOne, when NAB signed up as one of our partners. Unlike some other corporates that merely talk the talk and maybe put up some artwork or other things, the NAB really stepped up and embraced this program to create real and meaningful employment opportunities for Indigenous Australians. It was clear to me, given the way they embraced this program, that the support came from the very top of the organisation. So it saddens me to see Mr Thorburn reduced by his faith and by this measure found unfit to take on the role at the Essendon Football Club. Essendon Football Club claimed that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about 'a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club'. This is just hypocrisy at its finest—safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming, unless, of course, your personal beliefs differ from the reigning diversity culture. I accept that things have moved on and our society and that there are many different views on issues of social matters. But this is a very, very alarming situation that we have here. Welcome to the new Australia, where people can be censored and publicly punished by their mere association. We are no longer the country of a fair go. This fact should be a wake-up call for all Australians. It affirms what Janet Albrechtsen said recently in her article in The Australian. She said: Rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, so central to living in a free and liberal society, have been emasculated by social engineers who know exactly what they are doing and facilitated by knaves who should know better. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews rushed to attack Andrew Thorburn's association, which only highlights a further degree of hypocrisy. The Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, said: The Premier's own words about his beliefs and how they play out for the sake of others, have tended toward the harmful, because they have sought to uphold the good of one by undermining the good of another. Referring to Andrew Thorburn’s church and the Bombers’ decision to sack its new CEO, the Premier used words like ‘intolerant, ‘bigotry’, ‘absolutely appalling’, and ‘no sympathy’. Such language pitches some members of the community against others and contributes to an unhelpful spirit of division. It leaves ordinary people of faith questioning if they can publicly hold their committed beliefs, or even to be able to exercise leadership and service in the community. Then he went on to say: We cannot claim to be inclusive if we stir up polarisation between sectors of the community, because in our Nation and, I hope, our State, every person, and every community, matters. This issue is precisely why the coalition pushed so hard to pass the Religious Discrimination Act while we were in government. Opponents that stood in the way of the Religious Discrimination Bill said that the bill was a solution looking for a problem. Well, if Thorburn's case doesn't reveal the dire problem, then nothing will. As far as we know, Mr Thorburn was not seeking to use his platform as CEO of the football club to enforce his pastor's views on social issues upon the football club. He was not measured by his own history and record; he was measured by his association and was asked to make a choice that no Australian should ever be forced to make, and that was a choice between his faith and his job. The Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, has hidden from this issue. He has shown no leadership. Labor went to the election claiming that they will unite Australians, but when it comes to defending freedom of religion, they are nowhere to be seen. In an interview with ABC Radio in Perth, when asked if Mr Thorburn had been discriminated against by Essendon, all that the Prime Minister had to say was that that's not his focus at all. He has not been focused on that. Well, from time to time, you need your leaders to stand up and defend those that need defending. I call on the Prime Minister to step up and do more in this space. Faith leaders and religious communities are calling for religious protections. After Labor voted against the coalition's bill, they then made it an election promise. I welcome that, and I would like to see that forthcoming. I have been a strong supporter of religious protections and accept there is this massive diversity of views and, of course, lots of different positions. We must protect the freedom of individuals to be able to hold those positions. Australians are concerned that their freedom of worship is slipping away. Mr Thorburn is proof of it, and he is not the only one. Jason Tey, a wedding photographer, was sued by a same-sex couple because he told them that he did not share the same views because he was a Christian. He didn't decline to photograph their wedding, but nonetheless he received a letter from the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commission advising that a formal discrimination complaint was lodged. On the other hand, Muslim AFLW player Haneen Zreika was celebrated for refusing to wear the pride guernsey and skipping the pride round. Then we saw the Manly Sea Eagles implode because seven players made the same decision as Haneen Zreika. She was applauded, but Manly was attacked into submission. There is just no consistency. I raise those examples to point out that there is just no consistency. It's just another display of the left-wing hypocrisy. This is a clarion call to Australians of courage. It's time for Australians who aren't on board with woke extremism to stand up and fight back. It's time for an Australia where you aren't punished for holding fast to your beliefs, no matter how much the woke mob might bay for your blood. Budget 33 12:34 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Yesterday the new Labor government handed down its first budget. This budget had some very welcome measures, such as the measures of our natural disaster relief and changes to paid parental leave. But there was also $40 million in fossil fuel subsidies, $1.5 billion for a toxic petrochemical plant in Middle Arm in the Darwin harbour, and $2 billion for new gas projects. In their first budget, the Labor government have shown they are no better than the previous government for their love of dirty fossil fuel projects. Believe it or not, we are in a climate crisis. This year alone we've seen floods in Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, with the ACT and the Northern Territory on high alert. This is in fact the whole country that is being affected by the climate emergency. These have been some of the worst recorded floods we've seen in our history, with some areas on the east coast like Lismore having been flooded multiple times. Researchers have confirmed that climate change is making this worse. This is what climate change looks like, and, with the Labor government continuing to put money into fossil fuel projects and opening up new land and waters for exploration, approving new projects or allowing for any more expansion to these, it's only going to get worse. You can't put the fire out while you're pouring more fuel onto it. This government is moving away from coal, ever so slowly, which is a welcome move, but it needs to happen faster. More importantly, it cannot be replaced with a reliance on gas. The previous government very misleadingly marketed their gas-led recovery during COVID as climate action. Gas is a fossil fuel. Gas is just as dirty as coal. Moving away from coal to gas is in fact not climate action. Recently the parliament passed Labor's Climate Change Bill to legislate their 43 per cent emissions reduction target. The opening or expansion of one fossil fuel project will blow this target. We know that carbon capture and storage has not yet been proven to work at the scale needed to justify opening up these new projects, despite fossil fuel companies continually claiming they will in fact be able to offset their emissions with these projects. At some point, we need to say: 'Enough. No more new coal and gas.' The Greens believe it's time, as do the United Nations, the International Energy Agency, our brothers and sisters in the Pacific Islands, and thousands of people who consistently protested against the opening of new fossil fuel projects and the lack of substantive climate action. At what point will the major parties finally join the rest of us? Will it be once the fossil fuel corporations have destroyed our whole country and drawn out every drop of oil and every gram of coal? Or will it be when they don't have any more money left to donate to the major parties? Let's be honest; since 2012, both the major parties have accepted over $8.2 million from coal, gas and oil companies. In return those companies get grants, exemptions and approvals. The major parties are too scared to take the real climate action needed because they might lose some precious money. So they do the bidding of these fossil fuel companies and then roll out of parliament and into high-paid jobs with the same companies. This is state capture. The major parties, and therefore the government, are captured by the fossil fuel companies and their interests, not those of the public. We simply cannot let the market dictate when it's time to move on from fossil fuels. These companies will do whatever they can to line their pockets. We've heard Minister Husic, a minister from the National Cabinet of the current government, talk about 'Team Greed or Team Australia'. He knows, and we know, that these companies don't care about us. They don't care about our planet. They don't care about the traditional owners' land and sea country they are destroying. They don't care about the farmers' lands they are inhabiting. All they care about is their profit. Right now there are 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline. If these are allowed to continue we will see more flooding, more fires, more droughts and more storms. The weather will become increasingly unpredictable and unruly. This will impact on our food supply chains. Our crops will get too much water or not enough. Generational farmers who have worked so hard to bring us the products we know and love will see yields decrease. Small farming communities will be devastated. Areas will become unliveable because they're either too hot or underwater. Right across Australia, and indeed the world, life as we know it will become impossible. The Beetaloo project alone will increase Australia's 2020 emissions by 13 per cent. The Barossa gas field used some of the dirtiest gas in the world. Scarborough's annual emissions will be the equivalent of 15 coal power stations. They're all climate bombs that the government can't justify setting off, because this is just one of the 114 projects currently in the pipeline. One of these projects alone is enough to blow the government's 43 per cent emissions reduction target and our commitments under the Paris Agreement. If all of these projects go ahead, our emissions will rise by a third. Beyond the destruction that Labor's position of continuing to open up new coal and gas projects will cause to our climate, it will also destroy the environment. These projects will put unique species—found nowhere else in the world—at risk. They will threaten birds, mammals big and small, reptiles and other animals that call Australia home. Offshore projects will also put our pristine coastlines, our reefs, our marine parks and our giant kelp forests at risk both directly, through the risk of spills and disruption from noise and lights, and indirectly from the rising acidity of the ocean that we are seeing as the climate changes. These changes are disrupting migration patterns, breeding cycles and the delicate balance of nature that's given rise to the immense diversity we see on this planet. That is all at risk, and, indeed, much of it has already gone. Further, every single coal, gas and oil project, either currently operating or in the pipeline, is on unceded lands. Many, like the vast majority of these projects, don't have free, prior and informed consent. You've heard me talk about this many times here in this chamber. The relevant traditional owners will tell you that they don't provide that consent or that it's manufactured, and we saw this in the recent Tiwi case. Some of these companies don't even consider consulting the traditional owners as being necessary, because they're not seen as relevant people. Since colonisation, First Nations cultural heritage has been under threat. We have lost sacred sites that hold hundreds of generations of knowledge and spirit. My heart breaks every time I have to see footage of the Juukan caves. Even worse, it doesn't seem like we've learnt from these disasters, as more cultural sites are under threat. Take, for example, the Murujuga rock art. It's the oldest in the world, and it's currently under threat. What I want you mob to understand is that you seriously need to consider whether you're willing to throw away this history and cultural heritage that we as a nation should be proud of. We should be rushing to protect it—instead of placing it under threat just to appease a mining company. We know this is happening right across this country. First Nations people are having their cultural heritage stolen, sold off and destroyed by this mining companies. I want you to ask yourselves: 'Is this really the legacy I want to leave here in the parliament?' You could send a clear message to us First Nations people across the country that you respect our voices, our cultural heritage, by refusing any of these projects to continue. You can do that today, and you can do that without a referendum. Approving these 114 projects has so many implications, and it's the social licence for these companies that is rapidly dwindling. The government needs to listen to the people they're supposed to be representing and not a handful of fossil fuel companies. But the government will do everything in their power to make sure that they can keep destroying our climate, our environment, our First Nations cultural heritage and our way of life in this country. The failure of this and previous governments to listen to the science—in fact, we saw no investment in science in this budget—will impact on each and every one of us, and we will continue to remind them that we will not stand by and allow this to happen without a fight. Wages 35 12:44 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Tomorrow, the Albanese government will introduce a bill to address the greatest challenge Australia faces: the decade of systematic wage decline that the Liberal-National governments have inflicted upon Australian workers. The real wages of Australian workers are lower today than they were when the coalition took government in 2013. It is unprecedented in Australian history that any government has overseen such a sustained period of wage decline. It means that the Australian middle class is shrinking. It means that we are in danger of leaving less to our children than was left to us by our parents. The worst part of it is that it wasn't by accident or even incompetence. The decade of wage decline was intentional. Former finance minister Mathias Cormann said it himself when he went on television and said that low wage growth was a deliberate feature of the Liberals' economic strategy. The Liberals and Nationals haven't changed. Earlier this year, they opposed a pay rise of $1 an hour for the lowest-paid workers in Australia, a pay rise that Labor and the trade union movement fought for and won. As we speak, the Liberal and National opposition have announced they will oppose the bill that will be introduced tomorrow. They're opposing Labor's bill to grow wages and boost job security before they've even seen it. The mere notion that Labor wants to grow wages is enough for Mr Dutton to say he can't support it. Opposing wages, opposing job security, and opposing workers' rights is in their blood. There are many members and senators from the Liberal and National parties who are from a different background to the vast majority of Australians. I won't say everyone on the benches opposite falls into that category, but there are a lot that do. Too many come from a background and life experience of privilege and have no idea about the real pressures working people face. They don't know what it's like to be living pay cheque to pay cheque. They don't know what it's like to not know when your next shift will come. They don't know what it's like to be bullied by your boss, to be told you can't join your union or to be told that if you agitate for a pay rise you'll lose your job. That's why they're so comfortable opposing any reforms that will grow wages. That's why they are so comfortable having a deliberate low-wage agenda that inflicts so much pain and hardship on working families. It's because they don't value the importance of secure work or the value of a decent and consistent wage. That is what the government bill is addressing. The bill that will be introduced tomorrow is about raising wages. It's about ending the decade of decline and living standards. It's about ensuring that people live and work with dignity and are treated with respect. It's about making real improvements to gender equity in Australia. It's about ending the thuggish and bullying intimidation of union officials by politicising discredited regulators. It's true that the government cannot just snap its fingers and give everyone a pay rise and a secure job. But what we can do is give people the power to bargain fairly for those basic rights. Our bargaining system is broken. It's designed to fail. You don't need to take my word for it, of course; the decade of wage decline speaks for itself. The rapid rise of insecure work speaks for itself. For too long, Australian workers have been powerless to stand up for their own rights. For too long, our laws have divided workers and prevented them from having a collective say over their wages and conditions. Australia is an outlier among developed nations in that workers with a shared interest cannot bargain together if they are split across different employers. In many comparable countries, workers can bargain together through multi-employer bargaining—in Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Austria, just to give a few examples. In those countries, multi-employer bargaining has helped their workers avoid the sustained declines that Australian workers have suffered. Indeed, for many years in Australia, multi-employer bargaining ensured decent wage increases and an ever increasing standard of living for Australian workers and their families. Under our highly restrictive and current bargaining laws, we are going backwards. By banning multi-employer bargaining, we're in the company of countries like China, Russia and Iran—countries that do not respect the basic right of workers to have a collective voice at work. To continue on with the status quo would be to continue on with the previous government's policy of deliberate, low wages growth. We cannot continue as we have done for the past decade. Australian workers are at a breaking point. I heard time and time again during the job security inquiry just last year workers across every corner of the Australian economy coming forward to share their stories. These stories were representative of millions of Australian workers. We heard from Sheree, an aged-care worker who said she couldn't accompany her mother to her cancer appointments because she had to be constantly on call for her next shift. We heard from Nicholas, an academic stuck working as a casual for 20 years despite working the same shifts week in and week out. We heard from Rob, a mine worker who was told he would be transferred from his employer to a labour hire company with a 50 per cent pay cut while still doing the same job. We heard from Peter, a Qantas worker of 31 years who was illegally sacked while he was on sick leave receiving chemotherapy for stage 5 prostate cancer. The Australian government has a duty—we all here have a duty—to give Sheree, Nicholas, Rob and Peter the power to stand up for themselves and their mates at work. That's what this legislation will do. Over the coming weeks, we're going to face a fully funded and highly coordinated scare campaign against these reforms. The interests of a small few, the richest and most powerful in our society, will be promoted ad nauseam in the media and in the chamber by those opposite, because these people have never once in their lives supported reforms that would improve the pay and conditions of working Australians, whether it was the introduction of Medicare, superannuation, the 40-hour week or paid leave entitlement. Conservatives and some in the employer groups have always told Australian workers that these reforms will somehow make their lives worse. They have always said it will cost jobs, kill innovation or hurt productivity. They've always said that we can't afford to pay workers a decent wage. Even now, when the share of income going to profits hits a record high and the share going to wages is at a record low, these sham arguments have never stood up to scrutiny. In the last few days alone we have seen Alan Joyce, the highest-paid CEO in Australia, who is best known for illegally stacking 2,000 people, in the media telling people they should be scared of multi-employer bargaining—ironic, when he has dozens upon dozens of his own companies bargaining for lower wages. Why would anybody listen to him on workers' rights? After a decade of wage decline and job security decline, Australia voted for a government that will stand up for their rights at work, a government that will stand up for secure jobs and fair pay, a government that will ensure that no-one is left behind. These reforms can deliver on those commitments. The Australian people deserve better than an opposition that opposes the reforms before they've even seen them. Orphanage Trafficking 36 12:53 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia It's always good to be able to stand in this place and provide good news to the chamber, and today I rise to do exactly that, on a significant milestone in the global fight against orphanage trafficking. Earlier this month I was honoured to represent the Australian parliament at the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union conference hosted in Kigali, Rwanda. This conference was first and foremost an important opportunity for democratic parliaments to stand together in support of peace, democracy and the rule of law, but also at the conference I took the opportunity to raise the issue of orphanage trafficking with parliamentary colleagues from over 100 countries. I did so because I believe this form of child trafficking and modern slavery is one that, by working together, we can reduce and in fact eradicate. The response of parliamentary colleagues from around the globe was immediate and it was positive. I'm very proud to advise the Senate that the IPU's Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights accepted my proposal for global parliaments to work together to stop the scourge of orphanage trafficking. And now, as the proposal's co-raconteur, I will work to take this proposal through the IPU over the next 12 months. The next step is for the Australian proposal to be put as a formal resolution to the committee's next meeting in Bahrain in March 2023, and, if adopted in Bahrain, it will be debated in the committee for adoption at the next assembly in October next year. I thank all of my parliamentary colleagues both in this place and in the other place for their amazing support for this proposal. She's not here, but I warmly thank Senator Payman, in particular, for submitting the proposal on my behalf and for her great passion for, and persuasiveness with, this proposal. Of course, I must also thank our wonderful Senate staff who accompanied us on the trip: first of all, the Clerk Assistant, Ms Toni Matulick, who, I note, is here in the chamber at the moment, and also Jane Thomson. Not only did they provide terrific support to the delegation itself, but the Clerk Assistant also provided above and beyond support to shepherd this proposal through the myriad of bureaucracy, so I thank you very much for that. Colleagues, for those of you who don't know what orphanage trafficking is, let me explain. Orphanage trafficking is a uniquely 21st-century form of slavery and it is also the perfect 21st-century multibillion-dollar scam. Orphanage tourism is where well-meaning Australians and people from many other nations visit or volunteer in so-called orphanages. Their doing that is a key risk indicator for orphan trafficking and a key vulnerability. It is now, sadly, one of the most effective and common means of profiting from the institutionalisation of children, and is often—in fact, most frequently—associated with many forms of child exploitation. Of course not all children in institutional care are trafficked, nor are they exploited, but how are our volunteers and donors today to know the difference? In short, they cannot. And, even if it is one of the few genuine facilities, we know the damage that institutionalisation and orphanages due to our own children, which is why we have stopped doing that, but, for some reason, we still rush to support the institutionalisation of other peoples' children. At its most basic, orphanage trafficking is really an issue of supply and demand. The demand for orphan children has been created by hundreds and thousands of volunteers and donors from donor source countries like Australia who have both the desire and the funds to support so-called orphan children in what we call 'donor recipient countries'. Our demand is met by the supply through the removal of millions of children from vulnerable families. Well over 80 per cent of these children are not orphans, but they are from vulnerable and poor families. Many of these children are sourced by recruiters through false pretences and also by deceiving the children's parents, sometimes by the offer of money but often by a very powerful but simple promise to parents that they will give their children a better life than the parents can themselves. The tragedy then proceeds because many of these children are what is called 'paper orphaned'. They are provided with new identity papers—hence, 'paper orphans'—and they're given a new orphan identity. They are placed in a so-called orphanage, often very far from home so their parents can't find them. They are not visible to the state authorities either as the institution themselves or the children. They are invisible to child protection and any other state oversight, and, sadly, most of them never, ever see their families again. Typically, in these facilities, they live in substandard conditions, receive little education and are deliberately poorly fed because this combination is designed to elicit our sympathy and elicit much larger donations from volunteers and also donors. These kids are often subject to the most appalling forms of child labour, sexual exploitation and domestic servitude because, ultimately, these children are commodities for profit. It really is the perfect scam for, I think, three compelling—but, equally, shocking—reasons. The first is that millions of people find the narrative of assisting poor orphans so compelling that they are ready to open their wallets and their hearts. But, unfortunately, so often we do that without undertaking due diligence on either the home we're looking to support or the individual children themselves, and volunteers and donors all too often just assume somebody else has done that checking for them. Second, it's a perfect scam because people in donor source countries, such as Australia, seem unaware of the dissonance in having, as in Australia, phased out orphanages and group homes—that is, congregate care for children. We've done that for our own children because we understand the damage it does to our own children, yet the dissonance is that we are, in record numbers, flocking to support the institutionalisation of other people's children, simply because they are poor. Third, it is a perfect scam because nobody wants to believe that, instead of helping orphaned children, which is what they thought they were doing, they have actually paid for the trafficking and the exploitation of those very children they believed they were helping. Not only that, they and their children, who they often send to these facilities, have photos of these kids they do not know all over their Instagram accounts, and they say, 'Isn't this fabulous! I've been there and I have helped poor orphans.' I first learned about this trade in children when I was in Cambodia on a parliamentary trip in 2016. Needless to say, it caused me a great deal of dissonance and concern, and I've been passionately pursuing this issue since then to get global and domestic recognition. Since then, I'm very proud that Australia has taken the lead in this. Orphanage tourism was first recognised as a risk for modern slavery in the Global Slavery Index in 2016. Since 2017, it has been recognised by the US state department in the Trafficking in Persons Report, the TIP report. In 2018, I was incredibly proud, as the then Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, to take the first modern slavery legislation through this place. We became the first parliament globally to recognise orphanage trafficking as a form of modern slavery. So, in conclusion, how can we, as parliamentarians, help to assist in the stopping of this trade? Firstly, those of us in donor countries who have caused this form of modern slavery and the trafficking of these children must stop the demand. We do that by highlighting this issue and changing the behaviours of donors and volunteers. Don't just go and blindly support these facilities; look for programs that support children in their own homes or in other homes in their own communities so they can be raised by their families or other families in their local communities. Secondly, in the donor recipient nations, we have to seek ways for donors to support programs that, again, support the families to stay together. The good news is that we already have a lot of tools at our disposal, and I look forward to keeping this chamber updated on our progress. Health Care 38 13:03 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Brighton is getting a walk-in health clinic. We pushed the heart of this through the election campaign, so I give a huge shout-out to my buddy Troy Pfitzner, who ran with us for Lyons. He was out there pushing to get better health care for his home town way before the campaign started. The member for Lyons might have only picked it up a few days before polling day, but we're happy to run the country for Labor—no problem! Our vollies and our candidates were out there for months, calling for better health care for everyone in Brighton and the Derwent Valley. You guys feel Tasmania's doctor shortages as badly as anyone. We've seen medical centres in New Norfolk close their books to new patients. Doctors are quitting and moving away. You can't get in to see a GP if you come down with a fever on a weekend. It's too bad if you have a temperature on a Saturday night. You're on your own. We look after sick people only during business hours. That's why we came up with the idea of walk-in clinics in Tassie last year. Here's a secret for you: we got the idea from Canberra. There are walk-in clinics up here in the ACT. They've been around for years. Canberrans can walk into an urgent care clinic here and get help for cuts, burns and broken bones. You don't have to wait for hours, and you don't have to pay a cent. You get the help you need, and Canberra's hospitals and doctors' offices have one less person to see. We saw that and we knew it was what Tassie needed. We need to find a middle ground between going to a GP and going to the hospital. And I'll pay credit to the government where it's due. They saw it too. I'm glad they're getting started. I only hope we go a bit further than what Labor has bookmarked so far. The budget sets aside $1.6 million to set up the Brighton centre, but there's nothing after that. It always makes me nervous when governments hand over money for one year and one year only. This thing will need staying power. We'll need to give support to the doctors and nurses who work there. We want them to choose to stay and make Brighton their home. Right now, GPs and nurses aren't choosing to stay. We can't get people to move out of the city and come to the country areas that are crying out for health care. This thing cannot work if we don't fix that. It's no good having a nice building if you can't fill it with people to do the work. I'm also worried that Labor says this thing is only going to be open for extended business hours, running until 6 or 7 at night. That won't be good enough. I want it to be open late into the night. You don't get to control when your kid gets sick. You can't help it if you wake up with chest pains and need help right away. You shouldn't have to wait to go in and see someone. Extended business hours isn't enough. The last thing I want to see is for Labor not to follow through on its promise to bring three urgent-care clinics to our state. This walk-in clinic in Brighton would be a good spot for the first. I want to see the other two set up by the end of next year. Here are two spots for consideration. The first is Launceston. The Launceston General Hospital has the worst wait times in the country. In 2020 there were 9,000 patients in Launnie hospital who waited for longer than it's safe to wait. In one case, a grandfather with pneumonia sat in a plastic chair for nine hours because there were no free beds for him to lie down on. Every urgent-care centre in Launnie would give people somewhere else to go. It would take pressure off the A&E and give people help when they need help. The other place we need an urgent-care centre is on the north-west coast. You cannot get in to see a doctor in Burnie right now. The books are packed. If you can't afford to pay out of your own pocket you'll be waiting even longer for an appointment. We need free options for people. Right now, people are putting off treatment, and it's only making things worse. Senator Lambie and I will make sure Tasmania gets its due when it comes to our health care. We have the lowest number of doctors per capita and our hospitals are falling to pieces. Let's hope we can all turn a new leaf in the healthcare industry, starting with the announcement yesterday. Heavy Vehicle Rest Areas 38 13:07 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It gives me great pleasure to rise today to talk about something I'm very passionate about, which is heavy vehicle rest areas or truck bays. A lot of people in suburban Australia would have no idea what I'm even talking about. These can take all shapes and sizes, but they're normally parking bays on the side of the road. You'll see a blue sign. Some of them may have a bit of bitumen. Some may have a bit of lighting. If you're really lucky, in Western Australia at some of them you might even get a rubbish bin. If you're in the Kimberley, don't hold your breath on it. Truck bays are such an important part of our national infrastructure. We had many heroes of the pandemic—from shop assistants to nurses and medical staff—but our trucking heroes kept this nation going. If I sat down and told you the way our truckies were treated in the early days of the pandemic you wouldn't believe that this would happen in 2022 in Australia. It got to the stage where they were treated like lepers. Yet truckies deliver the food, the fuel, the building materials and the medicines. Everything you consume, everything you wear, everything you touch and everything you see has been on the back of a truck at some stage—at least once but sometimes twice or three times and sometimes eight or nine or 10 times. Look at the cardigan you might be wearing or the ugg boots you've got on. Imagine how many trips those uggies have taken from when things first started off with food going to the farm and sheep being shorn. Do I have to keep going? Do you understand where I'm going on this? How many trips have those ugg boots taken by the time they've gone through the manufacturing system and through the retail system? We are indebted to our truck drivers. They are heroes—and not just in the pandemic. Our truckies are true-life Aussie heroes, and they should be absolutely supported at every turn. Sadly, over the years they haven't been, and sadly over the years I've seen a terrible decline in the availability of truck bays and rest areas for our truckies. It's got to the stage where we have bureaucrats and state governments building truck bays in places where they think the truck drivers get tired and where they think the truck drivers might pull over. We've even had the absurdity of going back to the days when I was on the road, that if you were delivering in Melbourne or delivering in Sydney and you got in there late at night then you parked somewhere in the industrial area where you were going to unload. Now our truckies can't even do that because the gestapo in the councils now kick them off. They wake them up, banging on their doors. They'll have eyes that feel like they've been stabbed by hot prongs, and these people are banging on their doors and telling them to move, 'Get out of here!' They want the freight—they can't wait to get the freight—but they're treating our truckies terribly. But I have to tell you that there's a good side to this—there's a really happy side. During the election, I know that I committed, along with, at the time, shadow minister King, $80 million to build new truck bays. I'm very happy to say in this place that the Australian government is providing $65 million per year in two tranches through the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This provides funding for infrastructure projects that improve productivity and safety outcomes for heavy-vehicle operations across Australia, including rest areas for truck drivers. More than 90 per cent of projects delivered through this program will be in regional areas. It gets better: I'm very happy to report that the government is also delivering on our election commitment to the $80 million top-up—on top of it—dedicated to funding heavy-vehicle rest areas. This funding is in addition to the $65 million I already announced is to be set aside to fund rest areas, and it supplements the existing HVSPP. It means that, all up, the Australian government, the Albanese government, is delivering no less—it has committed to and will do it—over $140 million towards rest areas for our truckies: $140 million! And it gets even better: not only did we promise it, and not only are we going to deliver it, but part of the election promise was that our government said it would do something that no other government in this nation has ever done. We're actually going to sit down with the truckies. We're going to sit down with the men and women who have their hands on the steering wheel, day in and day out—those dedicated heroes who deliver everything we rely on, from the farm, to the paddock, to the stores, to the ports and to the shopping centres—six, seven, eight or nine times. The truckies are going to sit with us and the truckies are going to tell us where they get tired, where they need these rest areas and—God help us!—we're even going to start talking about fit for purpose. I'm so rapt, as an ex-truckie—and I'm still a truckie—and as someone who still does half a dozen triple road trains between Perth, Kununurra and Broome every year. I'm looking forward to this one. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Sterle, I'm reluctant to interrupt your passion, but your time has expired! Senator Dean Smith, you have the call. Smith, Sir David Iser, KCVO, AO 39 13:12 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the sad passing and also the very significant life contributions of a great Australian, Sir David Smith. Sir David died in August at the age of 89. For many, both here in Australia and around the world, he will most often be remembered as the man on the steps at Old Parliament House on Remembrance Day in 1975. He was there in his role as the Official Secretary to the Governor-General. From that occasion, many people's image of the Whitlam dismissal is now part of the Australian folklore. Sir David read the Governor-General's proclamation dissolving parliament. He was immediately followed by Gough Whitlam, who delivered the famous line: Well may we say, 'God save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor-General. While the events of 1975 would immortalise Malcolm Fraser, Sir John Kerr and Gough Whitlam—each in very different ways—Sir David Smith would go on to outlast them all. He was born in Melbourne in 1933, and educated at Princes Hill State School and Scotch College. He later attended Melbourne university and the Australian National University. He began his career as a public servant in 1953, becoming private secretary to the Minister for Interior and Works in 1958, and remaining until 1963. Sir David was then appointed secretary to the Federal Executive Council and, subsequently, secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, serving between 1971 and 1973. It was in this year that he was made official secretary to the then Governor-General, his Excellency Sir Paul Hasluck, who hailed from my home state of Western Australia. What is remarkable is that Sir David continued in the role until 1990. In that time he served five governors-general of Australia, being Sir Paul Hasluck, Sir John Kerr, Sir Zelman Cowan, Sir Ninian Stephen and Bill Hayden. His was an outstanding record, and one of consummate discrete and unfailing service. Sir David went on living here in Canberra, where, in a voluntary capacity, he often led guided tours at Old Parliament House. This symbolised his deep appreciation of and respect for Australia's institutions. He was later appointed a visiting fellow in the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University for 1998 and 1999, and was a member of the 1998 Constitutional Convention. An avowed monarchist and constitutionalist, Sir David never entertained any doubt about the actions taken in 1975. Significantly, he also refused to be defined by those events, despite the personal abuse he sometimes endured following them. According to the ABC, in his diary entry regarding the dismissal it simply read, 'Phew, what a day.' But he never wavered from his beliefs. He argued the Governor-General was Australia's de facto head of state and was not required to involve the Queen in his decisions but merely inform her. This view would be vindicated. The smoking gun long sought by republicans, that of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, and the late Queen allegedly colluding to sack Gough Whitlam, failed to materialise when the National Archives handed over correspondence between them. Sir David became a leading voice for the constitutional monarchist cause during the republic debates of the 1990s. Many of his intellectual arguments for monarchy have still not received any serious response from those that advocate a republic. I was greatly honoured to have attended the memorial service for Sir David and all that he represented last month. There were many other great Australians who attended, among them former Prime Minister John Howard. 'Simple and profound' is a fitting tribute to someone who meant a great deal to me personally and to the causes I hold dearly. Sir David is survived by Lady Smith and their three sons, Richard, Michael and Phillip, to whom I again pay my respects and offer my sympathy on the passing of a remarkably great man, a man whose contributions will last for a very long time yet. Budget: Education 40 13:17 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak today about the crisis in funding in our public schools. Private schools funding across the forward estimates will now be $1.7 billion more than the amount Scott Morrison committed in his final budget. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator, I remind you to use the correct title for members in the other place. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Thank you. As a proportion of total funding, private schools funding is growing, and funding for public schools is shrinking. The government's budget has moved Australia even further away from reaching 100 per cent of the minimum schooling resource standard for our public schools, and a greater proportion of federal funding for schools is now going to private schools, which is worse than under the previous government: over $70 billion for private schools over the next four years compared to only $45 billion for public schools. Labor has clearly given up on fighting for a fair education system, and it's completely disgraceful. At a time when our public schools are in dire need of adequate resourcing and upgrades, this additional funding simply cannot be justified. Public money should be for public schools. It is not justifiable that private schools are receiving ever-increasing funds, when public schools are consistently under-resourced and struggling to get the money that they need to make basic improvements to school amenities. Some people will rightly point out that there are small Catholic schools that are hard done by and could use more funding. But let me be clear: poor and struggling non-government schools are the result of funding decisions made by the private sector in how they distribute funds. We provide huge sums to each state's block grant authority, which are run by Catholic or independent education, effectively outsourcing and privatising the accountability function. This has led to a massive inequity between the large, well resourced and extremely expensive private schools and the poor, low-fee Catholic schools that service some low-income communities. Yet, despite the huge amount of money that governments are providing to private schools, both in general funding and as capital works grants, the average independent school has raised its fees by over 50 per cent in the last decade, and some have raised them by as much as 80 per cent—so much for the idea that funding private schools relieves fee pressure on parents. I understand the value of the work that public school teachers do and I recognise the complexity of the work. I have been a teacher for almost 30 years and, prior to joining the Senate, I was a high school teacher at Gladstone State High School. I have seen firsthand how the current system is failing our public school students and their teachers. I have seen firsthand the ever-increasing pressures placed on teachers and the lack of funding they are given to meet the challenges of more and more work with less and less. I have experienced the continual frustration in not being able to fund the programs for the students at my public school, while the private school down the road got more public money per student than mine did. How can that be right? No other country in the developed world pumps as much money into their private school system as Australia does. We are an outlier. It is costing us our children's' future, and the inequality gap is getting wider and wider. This is the last chance for public schooling in Australia; it is 10 years since the Gonski report. If we don't reverse this trend we are giving up on equity in Australian education. I won't give up on our public school teachers, their students and families. They deserve nothing less than a world-class public education system, and it is time the Labor government started fighting for that too. Budget 41 13:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Nine years under the LNP government have set a very low bar, so Labor's budget is better than we have had for a long time, but there is so much more that could have and should have been done to support people and to provide the services they so desperately need, especially with the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis. This budget is not the change people were hoping for or waiting for since they voted for a different parliament at the May election. It is shocking and shameful that in a wealthy country like Australia millions of people are suffering and struggling under poverty. These are not just numbers; they are real people living in our communities, in our cities, in our towns, in our suburbs, in our streets. These are our neighbours, they are our friends, yet this budget does nothing to support them. What is even more offensive and obscene is that this budget, Labor's first budget, locks in $254 billion of stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires, for politicians and for the wealthiest. Labor did not find it difficult to deliver these billions on a platter to those who least need it but they very easily chose not to raise JobSeeker above the poverty line. They chose not to put dental and mental health care into Medicare. They chose not to make early learning universal and free or to improve wages and conditions for educators. They chose not to support university workers, who are striking across the country because they are undervalued and disrespected. This budget fails young people and women across the country, who are disproportionately impacted by the cost-of-living crisis, the housing crisis, and the climate crisis. We had hoped that Labor had pinched our policy of one million affordable public and community homes but theirs is a house of cards that funds 10,000 dwellings in reality, with the rest left up to the whims of the developers. They pinched the slogan but, sadly, not the substance. The consequences of Labor's choices are that now everyday people are left to make the really heartbreaking choices. That's where the difficulty in choices lies, not the choices that Labor had. That was a pretty easy decision, and now everyday people are left to make these really difficult choices—between paying the power bill or putting food on the table, going to the dentist or paying the rent, turning on heating in winter and cooling in summer or buying school uniforms for their children. Budgets are there. They should be there to improve the wellbeing of people. They should be providing cost-of-living relief and increased support. But those on the lowest incomes are the hardest hit with this budget—while those at the top end of town get massive tax cuts and corporations are allowed to keep on profiteering, with no holds barred. Labor has made the choice to continue at least $40 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.9 billion to expand the gas industry. They have chosen to exacerbate and accelerate the climate crisis. This is unconscionable at a time when climate change is biting here and across the globe. Record rainfalls and dangerous floods are wreaking havoc yet again on our communities. Our communities have recently borne the brunt of such disasters. Sure, there are some good measures in the budget, but they are just small tweaks, here and there, not the transformational reform that we need at this time. This is not the budget for the times we are in, this is not the budget that people expected and this is definitely not the budget that our environment needs. Labor still has the choice of working with the Greens to axe the tax cut for the wealthy, to end new coal and gas mines, to freeze rents, to put dental and mental health into Medicare, to scrap student debt and to raise the rate of JobSeeker. That's not a difficult decision—but it sure is a moral and responsible one. Deakin Electorate: Infrastructure 41 13:27 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Last night we heard the federal Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, deliver his first budget. He delivered a solid and sensible budget, one that delivers for the Australian people—where the Australian people had voted for the Labor government. Our plan will help not just tackle the cost of living but also deliver important local community infrastructure. I will take the opportunity I have for the next two minutes to talk about the critical infrastructure programs that have been funded by the Albanese Labor government in the electorate of Deakin. Senator CICCONE 281503 I'm not going to attempt to go through all the details of the budget in the two minutes that I have, Senator Canavan, but I want to touch on a couple of budget commitments that are important to communities in the electorate of Deakin. I also want to acknowledge, on the record, the hard work, dedication and championing of these projects by our candidate in the last election. Unfortunately, he wasn't successful but Matt Gregg—an outstanding individual who was not just passionate but really committed—lives and thrives in the electorate and really has a connection. I think he deserves recognition for the hard work he did in the lead-up to the last election. The budget delivered last night delivers on our election commitment for a $5 million wellbeing precinct in Croydon. This precinct will deliver safe, modern spaces for community groups to meet and connect existing services in Croydon. Our budget also delivers $500,000 for new sports field lighting at Croydon Park oval. Clubs, including Croydon Football Club, Croydon Cricket Club and the Croydon Netball Club, have done a fantastic job in increasing participation in community sport, particularly amongst juniors and women. This lighting is essential to ensure that they can accommodate increased participation. The government has also allocated $1 million to redevelop Forest Hill Reserve, where there is also demand for facilities to allow more junior and women's sports. Labor is also making a $3½ million investment in an undercover basketball court at the local Croydon Primary School. This will obviously be of great utility to the school but, importantly, it's also to be shared with the wider community. There is huge demand for basketball facilities in Victoria, particularly in the eastern suburbs, and these are great examples of how Labor is delivering for our community. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The Senate will now move to two-minute statements. I call Senator Canavan. Infrastructure 42 13:30 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Later today a billboard will go live in Rockhampton with the words, 'Start the projects, stop ALP politics; Rockhampton needs the ring road to proceed'. This has been organised by local Rockhampton businesses who are furious with the Prime Minister about his broken promise on the Rockhampton Ring Road. In 2019 Anthony Albanese issued a press release titled, 'Rockhampton Ring Road a certainty under Labor'. Mr Albanese also came to Rockhampton, spouting the fact that he had made an $800 million commitment to the ring road. Earlier this year, the state government went out to tender on the road, and many local businesses started gearing up to be involved in the biggest road project in regional Queensland. Those businesses have spent thousands of dollars, in the expectation that they could believe the Prime Minister's word. Last night they found out that the only certainty is that the Prime Minister will break his promises. The Rockhampton Ring Road would have been a game changer for our nation. The Bruce Highway goes straight through Rockhampton, which means that all trucks going north and south get held up in the local traffic. You can easily be held up by 30 minutes or more at the wrong time of day. The ring road would have cut living costs for all, because it would have cut the cost of transporting beef, pineapples, bananas and other great Queensland produce to our shops. Now the government blames cost increases for their broken promise on the ring road—but how is it that only projects in regional areas of our country face the chop? This government is giving billions of dollars more to help Dan Andrews get re-elected, but it does not seem to care about the increasing traffic and the delays in our growing country towns. This is especially galling for the people of Central Queensland, as it is the wealth of our beef and our coal that props up this budget. And we don't even get a basic 'thank you' from the Prime Minister. This morning Anthony Albanese claimed: 'I want to restore faith in our political system.' Well, Prime Minister, you do not restore faith by breaking faith with people. You do not restore faith by deluding them into thinking they can believe your words. Do what you had promised, and make the Rockhampton Ring Road a certainty. Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 42 13:32 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia ADHD significantly impacts the lives of around one in 20 Australians, and yet it remains fundamentally misunderstood. The medical profession fails to recognise it properly, and last night's budget totally failed to recognise it properly. All month, my office has been running a survey asking people with ADHD to share their experiences with getting a diagnosis and care in our healthcare system. With more than 10,000 responses, and still counting, I'd like to share with you some of the outcomes of that work and some of its more distressing figures. More than 63 per cent of respondents who suspect that they have ADHD said that cost is the reason that they haven't been formally diagnosed. More than half worry that medical professionals won't take their ADHD concerns seriously, and over 82 per cent of respondents identify as women, non-binary or gender-fluid people. This tells us that cost and the lack of training are the biggest barriers to ADHD diagnosis, and that these barriers impact women and LGBTQIA+ folks the most. We know how to address this, because 92 per cent of respondents told us how: add ADHD diagnosis and support to Medicare. Such insights are why direct community engagement is so important, and I want to sincerely thank everyone who has completed the survey. The ADHD community deserves better. The Greens hear this call loud and clear, and we are here to demand better. Tamar Valley Writers Festival 43 13:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania The Tamar Valley in Tasmania's north is home to a successful wine-growing area and a multitude of agribusinesses, but this fertile region is also where the Tamar Valley Writers Festival is based. Promoted as an event to inspire, the Tamar Valley Writers Festival recently hosted, from 14 to 17 October, authors, poets, playwrights, journalists, comedians, songwriters, filmmakers, editors and storytellers from Tasmania and across Australia. A carefully curated program of conversations, panels, tours, workshops and performances were assembled around the theme 'The good life'. Some in the chamber may remember a BBC series called The Good Life featuring Felicity Kendal and Richard Briers about a couple embracing self-sufficiency, while others might be more familiar with social researcher Hugh Mackay's book in which he challenges readers to consider what makes life worth living. However, the Tamar Valley Writers Festival theme is somewhere in between. Attendees were encouraged to look beyond the multitude of cancelled events that punctuated the COVID-19 pandemic and embrace hope for a community built around a love of words, stories and ideas. The festival was produced by a team of dedicated volunteers, sharing their passion for reading, writing and thinking with like-minded people. This event started in 2014 as the Festival of Golden Words in Beaconsfield, referencing the town's goldmine. Now the festival has evolved, spanning multiple locations on both sides of the Tamar and challenging people to think about exciting, difficult and provocative topics while also encouraging emerging writers and thinkers via its short story competition and the collaborative one-day workshop program with the University of Tasmania. The Tamar Valley Writers Festival is another opportunity for northern Tasmania to show just how amazing this part of our state is. This event provided a welcome taste of the good life and showed a strong appetite for community events post pandemic. Human Rights: Iran 43 13:36 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The death of Mahsa Amini has shocked the world but it probably hasn't surprised it because we know that women in Iran live daily in a regime that clearly does not see or value them as equal. The reports we are hearing out of Iran speak of actions that are horrific and indefensible. The Australian government has repeatedly called on Iran to cease its brutal oppression of peaceful protests. Today, I rise in this chamber to express my solidarity with women living in Iran. With Mahsa Amini—Jina Amini, if we use the name that reflects her proud heritage and culture—I rise in support of their struggle for equality and empowerment. I rise in support of their fight for their human rights. I rise in support of their enduring bravery and courage. I rise in support of their right to peaceful protest. These women and girls have the right to be heard and they have the right to be safe. Far away, here in Australia, we hear you and support you. Thorpe, Senator Lidia 43 13:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Later today I will be moving an attendance motion. This motion will call on Senator Thorpe to attend this chamber and give a full explanation as to why she, as a voting member of the Law Enforcement Committee, didn't disclose a personal relationship she had at the time with the former president of an outlaw bikie gang while the committee was providing members with sensitive information about outlaw bikie gangs. Senator Thorpe admitted that she and Mr Martin communicated via the encrypted communications app Signal and deleted messages to each other once a week. Her staff strongly advised her to inform the committee and to inform Greens leader Adam Bandt, but she ignored their advice and concealed the relationship. Her staff took it upon themselves to inform Mr Bandt's office. I acknowledge and accept the decision of this chamber to refer Senator Thorpe to the Privileges Committee. However, don't the people of Australia have the right to a full explanation on the floor of parliament? Don't the Australian people deserve that Senator Thorpe be held accountable for the obvious and naked contempt that she has for this parliament and for most of you sitting in it? Call me cynical or a sceptic or just plain illogical, but I am concerned that the Privileges Committee will keep this matter behind closed doors and that Labor senators, who need the Greens' support for their agenda, will protect Senator Thorpe. If you're not willing for her to give a full explanation here, then not only are you failing the Australian people but you are sending out a message that the Senate is a protection racket and you will further undermine public trust and confidence in this parliament. I am sure many Greens cringe when Senator Thorpe opens her mouth and they all have greater political acumen than she does, so it makes me wonder if her appointment as the Senate deputy leader was pure tokenism. Davey, Mr Paul, AM 44 13:39 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to note the passing of a stalwart of the Nationals, Paul Davey AM. A self-described 10-pound Pom, his decades-long contribution to our party began when he left the ABC to join the staff of then transport minister Peter Nixon in 1978. He continued till his passing just last week. From 1978 to 2000, he held a range of senior roles within the New South Wales and federal Nationals, including as our longest-serving federal director. He directly worked with five of our party leaders, from Doug Anthony to John Anderson. From 2000, he dedicated his time to chronicling the history of our party through writing eight books, including Ninety not out: the Nationals 1920-2010 and The Country Party Prime Ministers: their trials and tribulations, as well as writing regular columns in party publications. Importantly, in 2020, to celebrate our centenary, he published Milestone: a centenary of achievement: National Party of Australia, 1920-2020. In 2002 he was made a life member of the NSW Nationals, and this year he was awarded the highest award in the Nationals, the Sir Earle Page meritorious service award. His contribution was also externally recognised, and in 2019 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to politics, parliament and the Nationals. Farewell, Paul Davey. Dad, rest in peace. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Thank you very much, Senator Davey. Global Polio Eradication Initiative 44 13:41 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia At the beginning of the week, on Monday 24 October, we had World Polio Day, an occasion aimed at drawing global attention to the importance of continued international commitment to polio eradication. I'm delighted that in our government budget there is a $43.5 million commitment to public-private partnership to eradicate polio worldwide through the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which has been going since 1988. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of people right around the globe toward this program—in particular, the key role that Rotary Australia and Rotary International have played globally in the eradication of poliovirus. Since the initiative began in 1988, cases have been reduced from some 350,000 a year to just six officially diagnosed last year. But often we think we are on the cusp of its eradication when more cases pop up, with devastating impact for those affected. International organisations such as Global Citizen and Rotary have spearheaded the highly effective campaign to tackle this issue globally. I want to give a shout-out to the legacy and history of this issue. Back in 2011, local activist Michael Sheldrick, who has gone on to work for Global Citizen, lobbied Prime Minister Gillard at CHOGM. Back then, that turned into a $50 million pledge to the polio eradication effort, and today I'm very pleased and proud to acknowledge our current commitment. (Time expired) Turvey, Cassius 44 13:43 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I rise for a 15-year-old First Nations child, Cassius Turvey. Cassius Turvey was a loved member of the Noongar community who ran his own lawn-mowing business and would let community members decide how much they could pay him. On 13 October, Cassius was returning home from school when he allegedly was viciously beaten with a pole. He passed away eight days later. When a First Nations child is born, they inherit and learn cultural wisdom, knowledge and strength. Our families gather and we wrap our arms around our babies, knowing that they're our dreaming children. Their blood line is their birthright. This is our children's land. It is their country, and they're guided by our ancestors. If only it were a reality that our children could live out their birthright in this country; that they would live a journey of peace, culturally and spiritually safe. No Aboriginal child should be robbed of their birthright in so-called Australia. Our Dreaming child, Cassius, fell victim to a monster—a monster far greater than those who racially targeted and killed Cassius. The monster is the unresolved violent legacy of white Australia. To Cassius's family, friends and community: I'm sorry. To black Australia: I'm sorry. I am sorry that we are here again with yet another justice hashtag for the loss of another black life. No black child should fear walking home from school and no black mother should wonder if their child will return home. We all must fight for a country where First Nations children like Cassius can live out their birthright. Cassius: may you rest as we rise and continue the fight. State of Israel 44 13:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria When your foreign policy is being praised by terrorists, you might want to rethink it. That's exactly what the Albanese government should do regarding their snap decision to no longer recognise West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The decision, announced by foreign minister, Penny Wong, was praised by Hamas, if you can believe it. When a designated terror organisation says that you've taken a 'step in the right direction' then it's a pretty indication that you've in fact gone in exactly the wrong direction. The way in which this decision was made was shambolic. In fact, the Israeli Prime Minister described it as 'hasty'. Announcing this decision without any prior consultation with Israel was ill considered at best. Every nation has the right to determine its own capital, and making an exception of Israel is discriminatory. Imagine if another nation came here to Australia and refused to acknowledge Canberra as our nation's capital? The fact is that West Jerusalem has been recognised by Israel as its official capital for decades. It is the seat of its president, its parliament and its Supreme Court. It is the home of national monuments, including Israel's Yad Vashem, which is a memorial to the Holocaust. Jerusalem has been the spiritual centre of Judaism for thousands of years, revered in the Old Testament, and a holy city for Christians and Muslims, and Israel protects these sacred sites for all of us. There was no need for the Albanese government to reverse Australia's recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Foreign policy cannot be determined on the fly. They have upset a longstanding ally, all the while exciting terrorist groups. Let's reverse this reversal. Budget 45 13:47 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Having looked through the budget documents last night, in looking through budget paper 2 and the glossies, it's very strange that the missing piece here is a plan to promote private investment and a plan to promote employment. Of course we want to see policies where large and small businesses can look to employ more Australians, but that's missing. It's not the centrepiece of the budget, and I think that speaks volumes of this government's distorted priorities—the government for vested interests which we have now in Australia. Of course, one of the great contradictions here is one of the centrepieces of the budget, which is this housing compact or housing accord. Effectively—and this is the government speaking—we want to see the big super funds owning the houses, using peoples super, but we don't want to see individuals using their own super to have a house. It's a very distorted and twisted way of looking at the world, but when you are run by vested interests and you conduct most of the business of the government in favour of vested interests—class-action law firms, unions and super funds—I guess it's no surprise. So it's a very regrettable outcome here and, to be honest, there's not much detail about how this money will be spent. If you go through budget paper 2, and I'm sure many people will do that, you can't find where the $140 million will be going, other than being sent off to the NHFIC. I imagine it's to fund some sort of study or some kind of examination of how more money could be extracted, perhaps for tax benefit purposes. Tasmania: Floods 45 13:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It's been a really difficult few weeks for Tassie. Hundreds of homes and businesses have been hit hard by the floods. To everyone affected, my heart goes out to you. Tammy and I are here to help you with whatever you need, and we'll do whatever we can to help. Please don't be afraid to call. It's not going to be an easy road to recovery, and we also know you're just coming out of COVID, especially small businesses, and that you're already feeling the brunt. Places like Wing's Wildlife Park took a lot of damage. Concrete slabs were lifted by the water, crashing animal enclosures into each other. Echidnas clung to their wire walls until rescuers could come. Their wildlife hospital is completely gone, and the main business centre and cafe have been badly damaged. Their repairs will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The damage to Wing's was made worse by a lack of action following past weather events. In June hundreds of trees came down in storms and ended up in the creeks, and they weren't removed. When the floodwaters came down last week, those trees were lifted and carried further downstream. When the trees got to Wing's, they formed a dam and all hell broke loose, I can assure you. If those trees had been cleaned up after the storms, Wing's may have been okay and certainly wouldn't have got the battering it received in the last few weeks. The floods still would have hit them, but the impact wouldn't have been as bad. This is why we are talking about a national guard or some sort of disaster relief team. They wouldn't just go in and help clean up after weather events that have happened; they would also help stop things from getting really bad in the first place. A national guard could have cleaned up those trees back in June and hopefully have saved Wing's Wildlife Park from the pain it has recently gone through. It's clearer than ever that we need to get our skates on and get moving on a national guard for domestic use. These weather events are happening more often and are becoming more severe. The futures of businesses like Wing's Wildlife Park, I can assure you, depend on it. Climate Change 46 13:52 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Today I want to speak to both the federal government's and also the Victorian government's decision to open up vast amounts of sacred whale sea country near the 12 Apostles for exploration drilling. This is simply unacceptable and flies in the face of both the federal and the Victorian governments who are making claims to be taking the climate crisis seriously. I and my fellow Greens colleagues have said this over and over again in this place: you cannot take the climate crisis seriously whilst opening up new gas. You simply can't, and there's no way to reconcile this. If we want to have a chance to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees and to avoid further disasters like the devastating floods we've seen on the east coast, not one single new coal or gas or oil project can be approved or expanded—absolutely not one. Drilling in this area, like many others across the country, is opposed by traditional owner groups and locals, and this is a prime example of why having a treaty with both the Victorian and federal governments is so important. The 12 Apostles and any projects that may result from this exploration are on the unceded lands of the Kirrae Whurrong people of the Kulin nation. Not only does this site hold cultural significance as a songline for the traditional owners, but the 12 Apostles is also an iconic tourist attraction for the region, as travellers drive along the Great Ocean Road. The pristine coastline that surrounds these giant rock formations would be immediately ruined by any drilling in state and federal waters. As a proud First Nations woman and the Greens spokesperson for resources and tourism, I want to speak in solidarity with the traditional owners and recognise their fight for sea country to be protected and, even when the media cycle has moved on, acknowledge the work of my Greens colleagues in Victoria on this issue. I call on the Victorian and federal governments not to allow any more exploration on this or any of our pristine coastline. Northern Territory: Environment 46 13:54 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I recently had the honour of hosting the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Dutton, in the Northern Territory. I aimed to show him firsthand the challenges we face, which I'm grateful for, unlike the Prime Minister who's shown no interest in the Northern Territory so far. What the opposition leader learned was how true traditional owners are silenced by unrelated interstate activists who pay other Aboriginal people to pose as traditional owners to push their activist agendas. We listened to 86-year-old senior traditional owner Pompey Raymond and his daughter Rosemary, who, despite the lies that the Greens peddle, have been part of the years of groundwork and consultation for established agreements in the Beetaloo. Labor and the Greens say they respect First Nations, yet they hypocritically ignore traditional owners who don't share their values. These voices are not their priority. Before organisations such as GetUp even began their campaign in the Beetaloo, Pompey had already signed off on agreements for nine of the 10 leases for gas extraction in the Beetaloo. Since GetUp have been involved, Pompey and Rosemary have regularly been threatened by activists and fake traditional owners. They shouldn't have to be looking over their shoulders in fear because they want better outcomes for their lot. They shouldn't have to fight for jobs, opportunities and a future for their children and families. They shouldn't have to fight for what people in this chamber take for granted. They want to contribute to lowering the cost of living through supporting Australian energy, but Labor's budget razor gang has slashed these opportunities for ideological priorities, making the future of marginalised Aboriginal Territory children even bleaker, not to mention increasing the cost of living for all Australians. Labor, you must be so proud of yourselves. Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science 46 13:55 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania The Australian government has a strong commitment to Antarctic science, and the budget handed down last night included over $900 million in funding over the forward estimates for the Australian Antarctic Program. Australia's Antarctic presence enjoys broad support across this parliament, and many members and senators have joined the Parliamentary Antarctic Alliance, which I co-chair with Senator Duniam. When it comes to the impacts of climate change, Antarctica is the canary in the coalmine. Our understanding of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is vital to our understanding of how we continue to sustain life on our planet. This understanding was reinforced at the recent launch of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, or ACEAS, at which I represented the government. ACEAS is a joint initiative of the Australian Research Council and eight Australian universities, led by UTAS through the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, or IMAS. ACEAS will be at the forefront of research into the climate risks emerging from Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. For example, at the launch, we heard about research examining how ocean sediment can provide clues as to how the inundation of warm water may affect Antarctic ice. We also heard about a new model for predicting krill distribution and about how krill is such a critical component of ecosystems throughout Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, including Southern Ocean fisheries. The work of ACEAS is supported by the Australian Antarctic Program and by the Antarctic Science Foundation. I would like to thank the foundation's CEO, Andrew Kelly, for meeting with me last week to discuss the foundation's work. As a proud Tasmanian, I'm pleased to see Hobart maintain its role as the gateway to Antarctica. I'm also pleased to see government, universities and the private sector working together to deliver a strong Antarctic research effort. Murray-Darling Basin Plan 47 13:57 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Yesterday we saw the Treasurer deliver a solid and responsible budget that draws the line under the drift, decline and decay of a decade of the coalition in government. Of particular note for South Australia is the Albanese government delivering on its Water for Australia plan to futureproof Australia's water resources. National investments in critical water infrastructure projects are a key feature of this budget. Back home, the Murray-Darling Basin is considered the lifeblood of the state, and it is so important for all South Australians. It is of significant environmental, cultural and economic value to South Australia. Our Labor government will see the Murray-Darling Basin Plan delivered in full, and spending is urgently needed to get this plan back on track after nine years of neglect by those opposite. This budget sees funds allocated to improving and updating the science of the Murray-Darling Basin: $22 million to update the science to ensure the impacts of climate change are accounted for in managing the Murray-Darling Basin water resources—something that advocates, scientists and the people living along the river have been calling for for so long—and a further $29 million to improve the trust and transparency in the Murray-Darling Basin, which have been missing for so long. This will include metering and monitoring of water use. The former government was never going to achieve the 450 gigalitres being returned to the Murray-Darling Basin river system. That will now be a reality under this government. We will deliver a strong, secure and sensible national water plan for the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this debate has expired. We'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 47 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Before the election, the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said: People will be seeing in their bank accounts what the change of government mean s. Last night's budget confirms that inflation will be higher, electricity prices will be higher, gas prices will be higher, real wage growth will be lower and, under a conservative analysis, the average Australian family will be at least $2,000 worse off by Christmas. Minister, is this what Labor mean when they say Australians 'will be seeing in their bank accounts what the change of government means'? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister, I am going to warn the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ayres! I do appreciate that people are very keen to make a contribution about the budget, for better or for worse, but I am going to ask people to do it respectfully and to do it quietly. I will not put up with a lot of interjections. I could barely hear the tail end of Senator Hume's question then, and we have just started. 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question. I think Australians expect their government to deliver a responsible budget, an honest budget, a budget that deals with the economic circumstances of the time, a budget that delivers on the election commitments, and a budget that deals with and fixes the mess that we inherited from the former government—the mess in skills, the mess in energy, the debt and deficit that you left us, rising inflation, rising interest rates, a crisis in the energy markets in this country and an energy increase that you hid before the election. Australians expect honest, responsible budgeting, and that is what they got last night—delivering on our election commitments; not adding to the inflation problem that we are currently dealing with, which I am not sure any of those opposite actually acknowledges is happening; delivering on our commitments; and dealing with the waste, the rorts and the mess that was left to us by you when you were in government for a wasted decade, which in five month we have started taking action on. We are taking action on skills, on child care, on gender equality, on infrastructure, on health, on aged care and on PPL—all of these areas that you could not have given a hoot about. That is what we are doing. We are fixing the problems that were left to us. We are delivering on our election commitments, and that is what the people of Australia expect. They also expect some honesty from their government about the true state of the finances of this country—again, things that you hid in the dodgy budgeting that was done in deals with the National Party. We are fixing all of it up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, at the budget lunch in the Great Hall today, the Treasurer was asked: should Australians still expect that $275 off their power bills, particularly off pre-election prices? The Treasurer responded: 'Yes, it's in the budget.' Minister, where in the budget is that $275? (Time expired) 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The policy we took to the election in terms of Powering Australia, which the modelling underpinned, is in the budget. Perhaps you haven't got to that book, perhaps you haven't moved past the headlines, perhaps you haven't looked, but I can tell you: not only are we delivering on the policies that we put in place at the election but we have done more, because we inherited a crisis in the energy market, in gas and electricity, and we're fixing that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash? Senator Cash I0M With all due respect to the minister, I have a point of order in relation to relevance. Senator Hume's question was very, very clear. It referred to a quote in relation to the $275 promise being in the budget. Which page is it on? I would ask that you direct the minister to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. Senator Wong, are you seeking a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, I understand that the senator has now finished, but I would say to you, President, that you have previously ruled, as have previous presidents, that putting a lot of rhetoric and words into a point of order and repeating the question is not appropriate. I was pulled up many times, as you might recall. Senator Brockman is smiling at me, because he remembers that he pulled me up. So, I would ask that you do the same to the deputy leader, who continues to do that, rather than ask her own question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. I do believe that the minister is being relevant, Senator Cash, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Powering Australia plan— Senator Henderson ZN4 Powering Australia down into the ground! Senator GALLAGHER ING We know that those opposite don't believe in the energy transformation that is currently happening around the world and that they're going to put their head in the sand on. But it is happening. I mean, this is partly why you got booted out—because you don't believe in climate change, right? You don't believe in it. You don't believe in the transformation. The Powering Australia plan is in the budget. I'm happy to go through the separate measures that are included in that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary question? 14:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria At the government's Jobs and Skills Summit the Treasurer said, 'Our goals are just as clear: an economy where every Australian who wants a good, secure, well-paid job can find one'. But this budget confirms that 144,000 Australians will lose their jobs and that wages will be lower for longer. So, is the budget correct? Has the Treasurer broken his promise to the Australian people—just like the minister for energy, just like the minister for employment and just like the Prime Minister? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On wages, the policy that you oversaw, which is keeping wages down as a deliberate design feature of your economic architecture, is gone. And if you look in the budget you will see that wages are increasing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 Just to remind the minister to address her comments through the chair— The PRESIDENT 112096 But what is it that you're seeking? I can only assume you were seeking a point of order. You need to stand and say, 'Point of order'. The minister is being relevant, and I'll continue to listen closely. Senator GALLAGHER ING We are a government that wants to see wages move. I don't know whether those opposite have noticed, but we are dealing with a tiny bit of an inflation challenge at the moment! There is an issue here, which the government is responsibly responding to, and that is impacting on wages. Now, we have supported the minimum wage case. We are backing in a pay rise for aged-care workers. We have in this budget indexed community organisations so that they, too, can get a pay rise—something that you guys, when you were in government, never did. We are determined to get wages moving and to ensure that nobody is left behind. But these are challenging economic circumstances, and we will continue to work in the interests of the Australian people. (Time expired) Budget 49 14:09 Sen 281603 South Australia ator MARIELLE SMITH () (): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's budget and, in particular, how it is delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. Last night the Treasurer delivered a responsible budget that is right for the times and that readies us for the future. The budget confronts challenges that have been ignored for too long and seizes the opportunities that won't wait any longer. It delivers on our commitments, which the Australian people endorsed at the last election, affirming their faith in a new government. Australians know that a complex combination of challenges at home and abroad is pushing up the cost of living and they know the government can't make inflation disappear overnight. But our budget delivers on cost-of-living relief that is responsible, reasonable and targeted and delivers a long-term economic dividend. Our five-point plan for cost-of-living relief includes delivering cheaper child care for 1.26 million families, with 96 per cent of families with children in care better off and no family worse off. It expands paid parental leave to 26 weeks for working parents—the biggest reform of paid parental leave since Labor introduced it in 2011. We are making housing more affordable and helping more Australians to buy a home, with 30,000 affordable and social homes, delivered via the Housing Australia Future Fund returns, and an additional 20,000 affordable homes delivered under the National Housing Accord. We will cut the cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving around 1.6 million Australians more than $190 in out-of-pocket costs each year. We are supporting wage increases for our lowest paid workers, boosting job security and employee entitlements and getting wages moving again. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know it hurts your ears, but we're getting wages moving again. The $7.5 billion package helps put some money back into people's pockets, boosts productivity and grows the economy, but it's carefully targeted and careful for the times so that it avoids placing additional pressure on inflation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, your first supplementary question? 14:11 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister provide further detail on how the government's budget is building a stronger, more resilient and more modern economy? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thanks, Senator Smith, for the supplementary question. Under the former government, our economy wasn't delivering for Australians like it needed to. The Jobs and Skills Summit brought Australians together to address the challenges and opportunities facing the labour market and the economy, and to help reverse the trends we'd been seeing after a decade of wasted opportunity. Our budget delivers quality investments in the capacity of the Australian economy and the capabilities of the Australian people, including fee-free TAFE and more university places. It delivers our Powering Australia plan to build a future with cleaner and cheaper energy. Understand that? That's what we need to do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath. Senator GALLAGHER ING We are planning for a future made in Australia, investing in priority industries to grow our industrial base, diversify our economy and boost and support regional development and small business. We're also building disaster resilience and preparedness, and investing in a value-for-money pipeline of nation-building investments through our infrastructure program. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, your second supplementary question? 14:12 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister provide further detail on how the government is repairing the budget to pay for what is important? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Smith. Yes, I can. Our budget begins the hard task of budget repair. We are fixing the budget. Let's just remember what we inherited— Honourable senators int erjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'm going to wait for quiet until I ask the minister to continue her answer. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING So we're repairing the budget, which was left with deficits as far as the eye could see, and debt increasing. Remember that? We had double the debt before the pandemic. We are the first government in a long time to take the issue of budget repair seriously. We have found $22 billion in savings, and redirected spending. We're still managing, against that backdrop, to invest in hospitals, in aged care and in child care and to support our progress towards gender equality. We're investing more in the NDIS, deepening relations in the Pacific and making sure that we're equipping Defence to respond to some of the challenges that they are facing. We are managing to do all of this while finding $22 billion in savings to start to repair the budget that you left in tatters. (Time expired) Opposition sena tors interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 When you're finished, Senator Hume and Senator Henderson. You've got a member of your own side on her feet. Budget 50 14:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is also to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. I refer the minister to her answer to Senator Hume's question, where, in responding to the Treasurer's statement that Labor's promised $275 cut to power bills is in the budget, the minister said that the Treasurer was referring to the Powering Australia measures. Will these measures reduce power bills by $275, as Labor promised? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I have a couple of things to kick off with there. No. 1 is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy—that is No. 1. No. 2: there is a war in Europe, right? And, No. 3, we are fixing a decade of— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Wong. When there's quiet I will ask the minister to continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. Our Powering Australia policy, which was modelled before the election— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong and Senator Cash! Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. Our policy, which was modelled before the election, clearly outlined the policies that we need to implement in order to put downward pressure on household and business energy bills. That is what we are doing— Senator Cash I0M And you're not doing very well, are you? Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, if I can respond to the interjection: what about the little sneaky 20 per cent increase that you guys hid before the election? Do you remember that? Remember that? The Treasurer said, 'Oh, let's take this rather unusual step of not allowing that to happen.' Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. The 20 per cent increase that was known to the former government before the election—let's put that out. Then you hid it, and you hid it because you were dishonest. That's another reason why you were kicked out of office, because people didn't trust you and they didn't think you were doing the right thing. So let's just— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 President, I rise on a point of order. I would again ask you to direct the minister to make her comments through the chair. Saying, 'People don't trust you,' is very derogatory of you, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Henderson. The minister is, largely, addressing the chair. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. We are implementing our Powering Australia plan, and you can see it through the budget. I'm happy to go through measures of it. We have our Rewiring the Nation—remember that? It's because the energy grid isn't fit for purpose. I wonder why? Ten years of a government that didn't do anything, that didn't do its job. So, yes, that's in the budget. We've got money for dispatchable storage technology, we've got money for community batteries— Senator McGrath 217241 So yes or no? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please assume your seat. Senator McGrath, you seem to be desperate to ask questions, but you don't ask them— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! You don't ask them by constantly interjecting across the chamber. Please continue, Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, I will. We've got community batteries for household solar, we've got community solar banks— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Cash? Senator Cash I0M Thank you, President, my point of order is in relation to relevance. With all due respect, again, to the minister, you were answering a lot of questions, potentially— The PRESIDENT 112096 What's your point of order? Senator Cash I0M Yes, but not the question that I asked— The PRESIDENT 112096 No, I'm sorry, what's the point of order? Senator Cash I0M in relation to if the Powering Australia measures reduce electricity prices by $275 as promised. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash— Senator Cash I0M That was the question— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've been in the chamber for all of this week and almost every day I've asked people, when they're making a point of order, to simply state the point of order. You have repeated the question; you just need to stand and make a short statement. If it's about relevance, then make that statement. I do believe that the minister is canvassing a whole range of options around power bills, such as was in the preamble to your question. I'll listen to the last 18 seconds of the minister's answer and, if she's not being relevant I will direct her to your question. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. I was asked about the Powering Australia plan, which is exactly what I'm going to in my answer. So we have the community solar banks and we've got energy efficiency grants, which my colleague Senator McAllister has carriage of. We've got other programs in the budget which deliver on the Powering Australia plan. We know that delivering that will lower power prices— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary question. 14:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Despite Labor telling Australians that if you were elected you would reduce their power prices by $275 each year, and despite the Treasurer's misleading statement at the luncheon today, your own budget papers confirm your broken promise. What do you therefore say to Australians who won't be able to afford to keep the lights on and who will suffer through the sweltering heat this summer? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I say to Australians who are rightly concerned about increasing power prices that they have a government that is 100 per cent focused on responding to this in every way it can and that will work with states and territories, who also have responsibilities here, to do what it can. Opposition senators interjecting— Senat ING Sorry; I know I shouldn't respond to interjections, but I know working with states and territories was a foreign concept to those opposite when they were in government for 10 years. That was part of the problem. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat, Minister. Order across the chamber! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING A foreign concept where the federation works together in the interest of the Australian people—I know that is foreign, but that is what we will do. We are committed to it from the highest levels of government. We will be dealing with this. That is what we say to the Australian people about it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:21 Se I0M Western Australia nator CASH (—) (): Prior to the election, Mr Albanese promised Australians that, if elected, his government would help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures. As Senator Hume has mentioned, though, your budget last night confirms that by Christmas the average Australian family will be at least $2,000 worse off. Is a $2,000 hit to the bank accounts of all Australian families Mr Albanese's way of helping with the cost of living? 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There is a $7½ billion cost-of-living package in this budget, but we also accept that these are really difficult circumstances for households, for families and for businesses. We inherited a high inflation environment. Senator GALLAGHER ING You can pretend the inflation problem isn't there, Senator Cash, but we don't have the luxury of doing that. We have to deal with the inflation challenge. We can't add to inflation, and that's why we are working alongside—we don't want to make the Reserve Bank's job any harder. We don't want to fuel inflation. We know that inflation hits households on low incomes or fixed incomes harder than anyone. So we need to make sure that what we do is responsible, aligns with monetary policy, delivers on our commitments and doesn't add to inflation in the short term. That is what this government will deliver, and that is, frankly, what we must deliver. (Time expired) Budget 52 14:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to Minister Wong, representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The Australian people voted for an end to public handouts to the coal and gas industry, but Labor's very first budget is adding $1.9 billion of new funding on top of keeping the $40 billion of existing subsidies for coal, oil and gas. Why are you too poor to give cost-of-living relief to families but not too poor to give away $42 billion of subsidies to the fossil fuel sector and $254 billion in stage 3 tax cuts to the rich? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think the first part of the question—the second part was a general political point—goes to a matter not in the portfolio I'm representing. I believe it goes to the Minister for Resources, so I'd ask you to direct your subsequent question to Senator Farrell. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Wow! That's pretty unprecedented. You don't want to talk about fossil fuel subsidies? Righto! Well, you shouldn't have put them in your budget if you didn't want to talk about them. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, resume your seat! Order! Order! I would ask all senators in this place to listen respectfully to the question that Senator Waters wishes to ask. I want to see silence from all parts of the chamber. Senator Waters, please continue. Senator WATERS 192970 Thanks, President. If anyone in the government would like to answer this, they're welcome to. Minister Bowen was reported in the Guardian as saying there would be no new public funding for coal and gas. Why is your first budget giving billions to frack for gas in the carbon bomb that is the Beetaloo basin and to fund an export terminal in Darwin Harbour for that gas, all without First Nations consent? Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order, I just want to make clear to the chamber that the opposition will give leave for any government minister who wants to answer a question to do so! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, that's not a point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong! I assume I'm calling Senator Wong to answer the first supplementary, or am I calling— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm interested in the coalition's newfound cooperation with the Greens, and I invite Senator Birmingham to go and explain that to Mr Dutton in the other place. Senator Waters, we are very pleased to answer questions. I have answered multiple questions in this chamber that have been directed to the wrong minister. You say it is unprecedented. All we are asking you to do is what people are required to do in question time, which is to address the question to the correct minister in the portfolio. If you wish for assistance in that, we can provide you with that. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Ashamed that the Westminster tradition will be upheld, Senator Thorpe? Perhaps you're not the person to be interjecting on that this week. Opposition senators interjecting — Senator WONG 00AOU If you wish to seek leave, I'm happy for the matter to be redirected, if that's what you want, to Senator Farrell in his portfolio. But the first question you asked was in relation to the resources portfolio. It is not unreasonable for us to indicate to you that the relevant minister is not the minister to whom you addressed the question. If you wish to do it, I'm happy to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Your time has expired, Senator Wong. Please resume your seat. Senator Waters, your second supplementary question? 14:26 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I did in fact invite any minister who wished to speak about fossil fuel subsidies to answer the question— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, that is not appropriate. Senator WATERS 192970 so I'm actually genuinely unclear on what I'm meant to do here. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters—order! I would remind the opposition in this place— Senator Henderson ZN4 They've just come in! The notes have just come in! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, that you get most of the questions. It is not unreasonable for Senator Waters to expect silence when she stands to ask her question. Senator Waters, you need to direct your question to a minister. An honourable senator: Give her an answer! Senator WATERS 192970 I don't care who answers it; I just want an answer! Minister Wong, Minister Farrell—whoever. I find it ridiculous that the climate change minister can't answer a question about fossil fuel subsidies. But my final question goes to a windfall profits tax on coal and gas. Why aren't you proposing that, given that the whole crossbench supports it, rather than giving them handouts? The PRESIDENT 112096 Your time has expired. Senator Waters, I can only assume I'm to call Senator Wong. 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure which question Senator Waters is referring to. It sounded more like a speech, if I may say so, than a question. Senator WONG 00AOU Now Senator Cash is backing you. That's interesting! Senator Wa 192970 Answer the question! Senator WONG 00AOU I have said to you, Senator Waters, on your first question, which goes to taxation measures and other measures in the resources portfolio, that if you seek leave for it to be directed to the correct minister the Labor Party will grant leave. You sought not to take that. You've now asked a second question about future tax policy, which I'm happy to respond to by saying to you that the government's tax measures are as those set out in the budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green—sorry, Senator Waters; I didn't see you. Resume your seat, Senator Green. Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 Thanks, President. With your indulgence, I seek leave for all parts of my question to be taken on notice by whomever wishes to respond to me, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sure. Senator Wong has indicated that it will be taken on notice. Budget 54 14:29 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. How does the budget invest in infrastructure, including in our regions, to deliver the best outcome for the Australian people now and into the future? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Green. I was very much hoping that I would be asked a question about our infrastructure budget and how it benefits regional Australia—and, funnily enough, you asked the question. Good infrastructure is critical to building the nation and the regions we all want and deserve, creating jobs and building better connections within and between communities. That's why I'm pleased to say that last night's budget delivered a $123 billion infrastructure pipeline over the next 10 years. That is a bigger pipeline than the Liberals and Nationals ever promised, even after we stripped out the waste, the rorts and the smoke and mirrors of projects that were announced and never delivered. It's an infrastructure pipeline that will deliver in every corner of Australia. In Queensland, Senator Green's home state, over half a billion dollars will be provided. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, seriously! The 10000 Order! Senator McKenzie, I called you to order. That is what I expect to happen. It's not a contest between you and me. I'm the President, and I've asked you to be quiet. I've constantly had to draw your side of the parliament to order. Senator Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, in Queensland, our budget contains over half a billion dollars for the Bruce Highway through Brisbane's outer north and between Gladstone and Rocky, as well as locking in over a billion dollar for the Coomera Connector stage 1 on the Gold Coast. In Far North Queensland, where Senator Green lives, the Albanese government is investing over $200 million on the Kuranda Range Road upgrade between Smithfield and Kuranda. In New South Wales, our budget includes a new $300 million commitment for the western Sydney roads package, upgrades to Bringelly and Mandalong roads and $38.6 million for Coulson's Creek Road in the Hunter—a project that the member for New England claimed to have secured funding for when he had done no such thing. I could go on through every state. In Victoria there is the Suburban Rail Loop as well as money for the Gippsland rail line upgrade. Tasmanians will get safer, faster travel through upgrades to the Bass Highway, the Tasman Highway, east and west Tamar highways and, unlike the last government, we will actually deliver the Bridgewater bridge. In South Australia, we have maintained almost $5 million for the north-south corridor and many other commitments as well. In Western Australia, there is money for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road as well as the Metronet. The Northern Territory and the ACT are getting great infrastructure investment as well. We are delivering; you just made it up. (Time expired) The 112096 Senator Green, a supplementary question? 11:43 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, how does the budget end the waste and rorts and deliver an infrastructure pipeline that Australians can trust? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, Senator Wong is on her feet. Senator Wong 00AOU I couldn't hear the second half of the question, and I would ask that the senator be allowed to repeat her question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, if you would repeat the second half of your question. I did not hear it either. Senator GREEN 259819 It is a very short question. How does the budget end the waste and rorts and deliver an infrastructure pipeline that Australians can trust? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I am going to remind senators— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Canavan! Seriously; Senator Watt has a loud voice and yet I can hear a range of interjections above his microphone voice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! It is not your point to argue back, Senator McKenzie. 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Green for her question. The very best thing about last night's infrastructure budget is that it is full of projects that Australians can actually believe in. The years of rorts, waste, and Barnaby and Bridget funny money and colour-coded spreadsheets are over. Remember the rorting of regional funds? Remember the regional funds that were awarded to provide swimming pools in North Sydney? It's very regional over there in Lavender Bay and Kirribilli, isn't it? Yes, it's 'very' regional! Remember the $30 million commuter car park that the coalition announced, even though there was nowhere to build it? Then there was the absolute debacle of the Lavington Triangle at 10 times the market value—what a bargain! And that is before we get to the Inland Rail or the coal-fired power stations Canavan used to promote and never actually got to build. They promised a hundred dams and built two. They spent 10 years lying to the Australian public with funny money and colour coded spreadsheets, and it has stopped. Finally, Australians have a government they can believe in, that will actually deliver, that will stop the rorts and stop the waste. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I remind you that when you are referring to people in this place and the other place to use their correct titles. Senator Green— The PRESIDENT 112096 Your time has expired. I'm going to Senator Green for her second supplementary. 14:35 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, how has eliminating the waste and rorts in the infrastructure budget enabled new investment in infrastructure and our regions? 14:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We make absolutely no apologies for getting rid of the false promises and funny money that littered year after year of Liberal and National budgets. The Australian people have had a gutful of colour coded spreadsheets, bad value for money and the shambles that this lot employed when it came to infrastructure. I've already given examples, but the list goes on. To end the waste and rorts we are closing down the egregious Urban Congestion Fund, rorted beyond belief by the former government, and we're cancelling a number of their most egregious commuter car park projects as well. The Liberals and Nationals wanted to build car parks on land allocated to affordable housing or at train stations that were being closed down. We want to invest in infrastructure that actually matters. I've got news for the National Party and the Liberal Party: that big slushy machine that you ran for years is closed. We are going to be delivering real infrastructure that delivers real economic benefits and real jobs to our regions and our cities and, you know what, we will actually deliver. COVID-19: Vaccination 55 14:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister For Health and Aged Care, Senator Watt. The contract the European health agency signed with Pfizer for the purchase of the COVID vaccine is now in the public domain. Although its bona fides has not been officially recognised, that contract indicates that, yes, Pfizer was given a financial indemnity against damage claims resulting from harm the COVID vaccine caused. Minister, does the contract that the Morrison-Joyce government signed with Pfizer include a clause that indemnifies Pfizer from any claims for damages resulting from harm to Australians injected with Pfizer's Comirnaty substance? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, before I go to that, I believe you directed the question to Senator Watt, but I'm advised that it should go to Senator Gallagher. 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. Obviously this predates this government—the arrangements that were entered into— Senator Rennick 283596 Just answer the question! Senator GALLAGHER ING Just give me a chance, Gerard. I'm getting to it. My understanding is there is an indemnity in place, but if I am wrong I will come and change the record. I understand it was put in place for a number of the new vaccines because they were new. There were particular COVID related arrangements put in place to ensure that we could essentially support the rollout of a widespread national vaccination program which was so important to ensuring that we protected Australians from the worst of the COVID outbreaks. That was essentially a secret. Getting the vaccine program rolled out and protecting people in the fastest possible way was a key strategy of managing the pandemic. If I have anything else to add to that I will come back, particularly if I have to correct the record. But I recall from my chairing of the COVID Committee that there were indemnity arrangements put in place for vaccine contracts. The PRESIDEN 112096 Senator Roberts, your first supplementary question? 14:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The contract between the European health agency and Pfizer included a provision that product indemnity was voided should Pfizer have omitted fraud such as in their vaccine approval process. Minister, does our contract with Pfizer include a similar get-out-of-jail-free clause for Australian taxpayers that allows the indemnity to be removed in the case of Pfizer misconduct or for any other reason? If not, on what basis was the decision taken to absolve Pfizer of responsibility for any harm their substance caused? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think it's probably best that I take that question on notice, because I wasn't a member of the government that entered into the arrangement. I'm not trying to not take responsibility, but I think it's probably best that I get an answer to you after taking some advice about that. I know there were elements of the contract that weren't public, and I don't know if there are some commercial-in-confidence arrangements in place, but I will seek to update the Senate with what information I can find, in an attempt to answer your question, Senator Roberts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thank you, that would be appreciated, Minister. The TGA Database of Adverse Event Notifications lists 136,000 adverse vaccine events, the majority from Pfizer. Doctors have reported almost 1,000 deaths, thought to grossly under-report actual deaths, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently reported 15 deaths. Apparently, Australian taxpayers will carry that entire liability. Minister, have you personally read the contract and will you release the Pfizer contract so that we can all see what the government agreed to? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My answer to this question is similar to my last question. I haven't personally read the contract with Pfizer, and I do understand that there might be elements of that, that aren't in the public domain, in standard commercial-in-confidence arrangements. I do know that the TGA does report, as Senator Roberts pointed out, about adverse events. There are a range of events within that, of any reaction to the vaccine, including the most severe reactions. But I would also say there have been millions and millions of doses provided, through the vaccination program, to protect Australians from COVID. So it has been, overall, a very, very successful vaccination program in protecting Australians from the worst effects of COVID-19. If there is anything further I can provide to the Senate, I will. Budget 56 14:41 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The budget has forecast that gas prices are set to rise by 40 per cent over the next two years. How does cutting millions of dollars of support for developing gas supply, including in the Cooper and Adavale basins, while also increasing funding to activists who oppose the development of gas supplies curb rising gas prices? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is the Senate in action—criticised for investments in Middle Arm and then criticised for other project decisions. This government does acknowledge that gas and other fossil fuels will continue to be required to support Australia's energy system, and I think that's important to say to the chamber. I think you see the results of that in the budget, in terms of projects we support, but you also see that we do want to be part of the transformation and the move to a renewable energy future, so you also see decisions like that in the budget. That is what any responsible government should be doing, at this point in time—making sensible investments, where they stack up. In relation to Middle Arm, it's investing in the general-use facilities that support that infrastructure but also making sensible investments in renewable energy. I think that is the approach the government's taken. We do acknowledge that gas prices have increased and are going to continue to increase. The government has had a number of responses to that, led by Minister King, which have delivered successfully in the short term on the supply issues, but there is more work to be done through the heads of agreement and looking at the codes of conduct and looking at where we can ensure that people are able to afford their energy bills, and businesses are able to continue to operate in an environment like— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McDonald? Senator McDonald 123072 A point of order on relevance, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister's being directly relevant. Minister Gallagher, do you wish to continue? The 10000 The minister's completed the question. Senator McDonald, a first supplementary? 14:43 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland So it is clear that the government has no real plan to address rising gas and energy prices or supply. Considering South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales are all set to experience energy shortages over the next three years, and gas makes up 22 per cent of Australia's energy consumption, why has the government cut support for developing gas supply in the Cooper and Adavale basins? Won't this slowing of new supplies drive energy bills up rather than help bring them down by, say, $275? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, we're trying to do a few things in this budget, and it's as I outlined in my answer to the first question: actually being an active participant in the transformation that's occurring in our energy system while dealing with the mess that we were left. We walked into government and into a gas crisis. I know you try to rub that out, but, essentially, I remember Minister Bowen and Minister King leaving the swearing-in ceremony to go and deal with what was happening in the gas markets. That is what was happening. We have taken a number of steps to deal with that. In fact, the focus of that first tranche of work was on dealing with the supply shortages that were being identified through the work of the ACCC. We have actually dealt with that. We are investing in projects where it makes sense. We're not just giving money for subsidies. In Middle Arm, for example, we're supporting common-use infrastructure and we are supporting the shift to renewable energy at the same time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, a second supplementary question? 14:45 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, can you cite a budget measure that will specifically help to lower gas bills for Australian households and businesses? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There was a range of initiatives in the budget, including extra funding to the regulators to deal with the mess that we have inherited from you. So, there is one. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, you asked me the question, Senator McDonald. You said name one. There is funding for the regulators to make sure we are getting— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, yes, exactly. You might not find that information useful, Senator, but the ACCC's report into the supply shortage informs government decision-making. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I will wait until it is quiet again before I call the minister. Minister, do you wish to complete your answer? Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I was asked to name one, and those opposite are laughing at it— Senator Canavan 245212 It's a joke! Senator GALLAGHER ING It's not a joke—the regulators and the experts are the ones that identified the shortfall that you guys had your head in the sand over and we dealt with. So don't say it's a joke. Running out of gas is pretty serious. And that's what you left us— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! S ING and we've fixed it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, your time has expired. Budget 57 14:47 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women. Minister, a budget sets out the values of the government. With every dollar it spends, it sends up a flare about what it stands for. Last night's budget was a chance to help Australians deal with very real cost-of-living pressures by redirecting the stage 3 tax cuts. These cuts, a quarter of a trillion dollars, will flow to very wealthy Australians, mostly men, mostly older people. That will widen income and gender inequality, instead of helping those most in need. Why has your government stuck with a $9,000 annual tax cut for the wealthy, striking a real blow against Australia's progressive income tax system, while leaving low-income families are struggling to pay for food, power and rent? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government hasn't changed its position on stage 3. Our focus in this budget, as we had said from the outset, was to deliver on our election commitments: to sensibly take pressure off the cost of living for Australians and businesses—where we could do so without impacting on inflation—and to deal with the waste and rorts of the previous government. They were the objectives of the October budget. The tax cuts don't come in for another two years. What this budget does is substantial investment. On the payments side, there's a $33 billion increase in the indexation arrangements for payments to help deal with some of the cost-of-living pressures that fixed and low-income households are under. There's also half a billion dollars going to the community sector to deal with their indexation challenge that's been ignored for the last 10 years and to deal with some of the cost-of-living pressures that those organisations are under. And there's the first step in a pretty serious package for women as well. I don't think it's an either/or. What this budget does is to set out the challenges ahead. The Treasurer and I have made no secret of the spending pressures that are coming our way. And you can see that, if you look at the medium-term projections and acknowledge that those five big spending programs are not going to change: we're going to see defence, aged care, hospitals, the NDIS, and the cost of servicing $1 trillion of debt going to continue to place pressure on the budget. We want a pretty upfront discussion about how we value those services, how we provide those services and how we will meet the cost of them into the future, and this is the first step in that discussion. I think the Australian people are up for that discussion, and they've got a responsible government that's prepared to have it with them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a first supplementary? 14:50 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia In my state, South Australia, I met recently with a group of people living on JobSeeker. They often cannot afford food or medicine, their kids don't make it to school excursions and their teeth give them pain every day. They're living on a JobSeeker rate of $48 a day, well below the poverty line in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. Why has your government refused to raise the poverty level of JobSeeker? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I said, there is a significant increase in the JobSeeker indexation arrangements—$33 billion that will flow through to partly assist with some of those increases in cost-of-living pressure. We don't pretend that there isn't continuing work to do in how we provide support and services to people on low incomes, but this budget is not the answer to everything. It is a point in time. It is the first opportunity to do what we said we would do, which is to have a budget which delivers on election commitments, which makes sensible investments, which eases the cost of living without impacting on the short-term inflation problem we have in the economy and which deals with the wastes and rorts that we inherited from those opposite. That was the objective of this budget. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary? 14:51 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Minister, there is no economic evidence that giving tax cuts to wealthy men will boost their work rate or their productivity or make any difference to GDP. However, there is buckets of evidence that supporting working carers and women will do all of these things. Why have you backed in a tax measure that mostly benefits wealthy men while offering women no superannuation on their paid parental leave, providing no lift of the rate of paid parental leave to their normal pay rate and making them wait four years to get to just 26 weeks? (Time expired) 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The tax cuts that the senator refers to are factored into the budget, and the government hasn't changed its view on that. In terms of the other supports, this is an ongoing piece of work before the government. We have said that in every budget we will look at what we can do to support people, particularly those who rely on government support. We will assess that. You have seen that in this budget as the first step in a number of budgets where these issues will continue to be looked at across the ERC table. In terms of the investments in services for women and policies to progress gender equality, compared to what we've had in the last few years, this women's budget statement is a serious start in looking at the issues, providing some analysis and starting with the policies that aim to fix it. (Time expired) Budget 59 14:53 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Can the minister please inform the Senate how the Albanese government's social services commitments are supporting families and promoting the safety of women and gender equality? 14:53 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his very important question and for his interest in this important part of the federal government's policy. The Albanese government is putting families and gender equality at the centre of policy-making. This is not a new commitment—it's been at the centre of our decision-making processes—and we saw last night through the Treasurer's budget speech that we've dealt with this issue. In the lead up to the 2022-23 budget, we announced that we had delivered the biggest boost to Australia's paid parental leave since it was created, giving every family with a new baby more choice, greater security and better support. The extension of paid parental leave is the first time the scheme has been modernised since Labor government introduced the scheme in 2011. It is the cornerstone of our commitment to addressing gender equality issues in this country. We are also deeply committed to ending violence against women and children in Australia and we are taking action. To this end, the very fine Minister for Social Services released to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-32. We have also introduced legislation for 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave per year to ensure that no-one should have to choose between a job and seeking support to deal with domestic violence. We are conducting an open, competitive process to appoint a domestic, family and sexual violence commissioner to act as an advocate for victims and survivors and to oversee the implementation of the national plan, including the monitoring and evaluation. In addition, in the budget released last night we confirmed our $1.7 billion commitment to— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary? 14:55 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Can the minister further inform the Senate how the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-32 launched last week will be implemented? 14:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his supplementary question. On 17 October 2022 that very fine minister, Minister Rishworth, launched the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-32 along with my colleague in the Senate, the Minister for Women, the very fine Senator Gallagher, and state and territory ministers for women's safety. In the plan, the government has set an ambitious goal to end violence against women and children in one generation. To support the plan, the Albanese government has committed $1.7 billion for women's safety initiatives. The plan includes example indicators for success that can track our progress in implementing this national plan. The national plan will also be supported by an outcomes framework that will increase our ability to track, monitor and report change over the life of the national plan. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Can the minister please inform the Senate how the Albanese government is supporting families and gender equality by boosting paid parental leave? 14:57 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Sheldon for his second supplementary question. Increasing paid parental leave was one of the most frequent proposals raised at the successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September. The Albanese government has listened, has continued to consult and will now act to deliver the biggest expansion of the paid parental leave scheme since it was first introduced by Labor in 2011. The budget invests $531.6 million over four years and $619.3 million annually after that to progressively scale up the scheme to 26 weeks, or six months by 2026. Our changes will benefit more than 180,000 families nationally. We know that many dads want to take more time off following the birth or adoption of a child. We see that increasing take-up of parental leave by dads—(Time expired) Health Care 59 14:58 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please advise whether the government believes the demand for state and territory hospital services will increase or decrease over the next four years? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think I know where this might be going. We expect that hospital activity and demand for hospital activity will increase. There has been a decrease in activity because of the pandemic and that has been reflected in adjustments through the activity based funding arrangement, but we are expecting that demand for hospital services will continue to grow as we normalise back into a post-COVID world. I would also say those adjustments in the budget don't take into account the extra funding that went through the COVID payments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a first supplementary? 14:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could the minister please explain why she believes and states the government believes there will be an increase in demand for hospital services, when there has been a $2.4 billion cut to hospital services that are being provided to the states and territories over the next four years, which, they say, is a reflection of the reduction in the volume of hospital services that are being demanded? 14:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would have thought, considering that you've recently been in government, that you would understand how the funding flows through in these. They are largely parameter adjustments that are based on the activity that was advised through the activity based funding. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, that is the reality. That is the system that you have operated on. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, order. Senator GALLAGHER ING Forecast activity and activity through the pandemic, based on the data that the states and territories provide to the Commonwealth, is reconciled through the budget process. It doesn't take into account the extra funding that has and will continue to be provided through the special payments under the COVID arrangements. As people would know, through the very successful National Cabinet we continue to work with the states and territories over pressures more broadly in the health system, including a broken primary care system which you oversaw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a second supplementary question? 15:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In confirming that there is a $2.4 billion cut to hospital funding, can the minister please explain why the government has decided that Victoria is to pay $2 billion of the $2.4 billion cut to hospital funding? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not sure I understand which two things you're linking there. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm happy to take it on notice and come back to you. But there is an adjustment through forecast activity that was reconciled based on the work the hospitals have done. The reality is, during the COVID-19 pandemic they did less of their activity, less of their normal activity that gets funded through this mechanism. That has been reconciled. There is additional funding going into health, I think in the order of $6 billion. We continue to work with the states and territories. They've got a government that wants to talk to them about how hospitals work, how the primary healthcare system works with that and how aged care works with that. You've got to see it on the continuum, and you'll see that in the budget: more funding for aged care, more funding for health and working with the states and territories on a national health system. Senator WONG 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Building and Construction Industry 60 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to question time yesterday, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by senators Cox and David Pocock, in my capacities as the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, relating to the CSIRO and security of payments. I have written to both senators to provide additional information, and I table my letters for the information of all senators. Budget 61 15:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to the point of order. Consistent with standing order 191, I invite Senator Gallagher to provide an explanation to the Senate in relation to the answers she gave to senators Hume and Cash. Senator Gallagher gallantly sought to explain the statement by the Treasurer that the $275 cut in power bills is in the budget. But, despite the Senator Gallagher's gallantry, Mr Chalmers has spoken in the other place, where he has confessed that he misheard the question. Would Senator Gallagher like to correct the record? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm advised, Senator Birmingham, that that standing order doesn't operate in that way, so I'm not asking the minister to do anything. Cybersecurity 61 15:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In question time yesterday I took elements of a question asked by Senator Paterson on notice. I've written to Senator Paterson to provide a complete answer and I now table that answer for the information of the Senate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 61 15:04 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers to all the questions asked by coalition senators to the government today. It's only in Labor's illogical, bizarre world that we could get a budget that's propped up by resources, but which also cuts support to them while giving extra ammunition to the sort of lawfare that we're going to see from the EDO. The resources minister is telling industry and media one thing, saying they're encouraging more gas supply to come to market; she knows that's what's going to reduce energy prices and provide better gas prices to the domestic market. But her cabinet colleagues are giving a nod and a wink to the Greens and to every other extreme green movement. So, the Environmental Defenders Office have received an extra $9.6 million to conduct lawfare against the very industry that is the only solution we have in terms of providing affordable gas both to the domestic market, for manufacturing, and for our export market. This year alone, the gas industry is expected to provide $13 billion in royalties, company taxes and PAYG payments from the incredibly well-paid jobs in the gas industry. And it is extraordinary to me: when I go to towns like Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mount Isa and Townsville, the journalists ask me, 'What do you think this budget means for our people, our workers?' and I have to say, 'Well, it's not much good news, I'm afraid.' In this budget we have seen massive cuts to incredibly important budget commitments that we had for the development of northern Australia, whether the billions of dollars for water funding, for Hells Gate Dam— Senator McDONALD 123072 I'll take that interjection, Senator Canavan. I will have to provide a map similar to the one provided by Senator Watt before he was a minister. He would bring a map to RRAT on which he'd carefully coloured in northern Australia, I think just to remind him of where it is. Using that map, he would be able to see, from the water investments, the road investments, the half a billion dollars that's been cut from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the cuts to the Northern Australia Development grants, and the cuts to roads and significant investments, that this is a Robin Hood budget in reverse. It steals jobs from the North—but I'm not sure where they're giving them to. It's the worst kind of theft, because nobody benefits and everybody loses, because it is the royalties and the company taxes—of gas, of coal, of critical minerals—that have allowed this country to be the First World country that we are. We've continued to hear, about this budget, the sorts of Labor lies, the unravelling of budget commitments that I'm seeing now. People right across the Australian landscape are saying, 'Well, we don't believe this budget; we don't rate it, because you promised us the Rockhampton Ring Road.' The Prime-Minister-to-be put out a media release committing to it—something he's now deleted. They committed to a $275 electricity cost reduction, but now all we're seeing is electricity prices skyrocket. We know it is going to cost Australian households another $2,000 a year by this Christmas. That's the impact of this budget and this government that doesn't know how to manage money, doesn't know how to manage the budget. This is the biggest spending budget—another $50 billion in receipts because of commodity prices. Yet what have they done with it? They've spent the lot. So, they have cut money from the places that make money and they're pouring it into the re-election campaign of the Premier of Victoria—a circular rail project that is going to assist a couple of people where they need to hold government. But the places that mine the resources, that grow the agricultural products, that secure the nation's future for generations to come—cut; dead; gone. That's what regional Australia means to Labor—absolutely nothing. 15:09 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Regarding the comments from the good senator in relation to our budget last night: the opposition, when they were in government, left Australia with a $1 trillion debt. That's what they did. They had 10 years in office to deliver on energy prices, to actually deliver an energy policy. I think there were 22 different energy policies, but that was when they actually had policies, I might add; now, according to their frontbench, they don't have policies, because they're in opposition. The budget that was delivered by Dr Chalmers yesterday was a budget that is looking to change the way the federal government operates going forward. That is a government that is run by adults, a government that is going to be open and transparent, a government that will deliver on its election commitments and a government that will govern with integrity. That's the big change. When I had the good fortune to make all the calls I did this morning to businesses in Tasmania about the investment that we've made through our budget to jobs, to giving opportunities to young Tasmanians, they were so well received. The comment from one of the hydrogen companies was that it's not just a breath of fresh air to have this new government but goes beyond that. It goes to the way that we have operated since we've come into government, the dignity and integrity that our leader, Anthony Albanese, has restored. People see this as a government that is prepared to work with the community, to work with the business community, and to listen to the concerns of everyday Australians. That's the difference. This opposition wants to come in here and lecture us about election commitments? Come on! It's a joke. It's an absolute joke. Making announcements when you're in government does not equate to delivering on those commitments. You can, as they did, re-announce various projects but never deliver on them at all. Our very own member of the opposition in the seat of Bass, where I live, is already trying to take credit for our budget, trying to take credit for the things that we committed to during the election campaign and are delivering on. Talking about energy prices, Marinus has just been announced by this government. This government was able to draw together a deal with, yes, the Victorian Labor government. But guess what? The Tasmanian Liberal government also signed up with the federal government because they recognised that there was such a change of attitude by the new government. The Turnbull government couldn't deliver Marinus for Tasmania and for the benefit of the entire country. Neither could Scott Morrison. After the years of his failings, he was unable to deliver that. That's just one example. In this chamber we all know, because I've spoken about it many times, that the home of renewable energy is, in fact, my home state of Tasmania. We know how important renewable energy is to this country. We know how important it is to our state. But we want to be part of the future to deliver better outcomes when it comes to energy. We on this side of the chamber have always argued for more money, more resources, and a commitment to climate change and addressing the needs of our country in relation to climate change. But not only have we delivered in terms of cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, more paid parental leave—expanding that opportunity for both mums and dads—and more affordable housing. We're also restoring opportunities for people in regional Australia to go to TAFE. We want all Australians to be able to access affordable housing. What we have done, and what we will continue to do, is to find the waste and mismanagement under the former Morrison government. What we aren't doing is using colour coding to allocate grants. Grants will be made on a needs basis, on business cases that are put to us that can demonstrate a benefit to that community. That's how a government should act, how we should govern, and that's how the Albanese Labor government will continue to govern this country. (Time expired) 15:14 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia The people of Australia are not all that concerned about the cross-chamber rhetoric that occurs in here. They're actually concerned about outcomes and the things that make a difference to their daily lives. What they're seeing at the moment is headlines in the Adelaide Advertiser saying that power prices will increase by some 35 per cent over next year. In the context of this budget period, estimates are now that power prices will in fact increase by around 50 per cent. For many families in Australia, that is crippling in terms of their ability to pay their power bills as well as the other aspects. So the question for them is: if this is the forecast and if this is what is happening, does the government have a plan to actually address the cost of living? Does the government have a plan that will help families? The minister, in answering the question that was put to her, talked about two things. One is the Powering Australia plan and the importance of the transition which is occurring. The claim was that the government is all across, and is following, the transition that is occurring overseas. I would just like to point to overseas. Media reports this week in the UK are highlighting that more than half of UK adults are struggling to pay their power bills, and, in Germany, some 4.2 million Germans are seeing electricity bills rise this year by over 63 per cent. A lot of people have said that that's because of the war in Ukraine, but, if you go back through the media from energy organisations in Germany, in fact, in 2021—which was before the war in Ukraine—Germany saw the highest increase in their power costs on record. Germany is often held up as a leader in this so-called transition of power, and, if the Powering Australia plan is following Germany's lead, then it's not a good outlook for Australian people. South Australia is also sometimes held up as an example in terms of the penetration of variable renewable power, but, when I speak to industry figures in South Australia, they highlight that one of the ways that the market operator manages power supply there is by managing demand, and the impact on industry, in terms of forced shutdowns and lost productivity, is measured in the tens of millions of dollars. So there is a cost to that kind of management when you have a high penetration of variable renewable energy, and that cost to industry also means that there is a risk to jobs and job security, which is another factor that families are concerned about. The key point that Australians need to understand is that in terms of the science of climate change, the narrative and the rhetoric that has led to the commitment towards net zero and the Powering Australia plan are not actually representing the latest science. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report that was issued in April this year highlights—and this is on the basis of work they have done with the International Energy Agency and others, with world-leading engineers and economists—that wind and solar will not get us to net zero and will likely send us broke if we try. And, as they work through all the systems costs, they come to the same conclusion that the IPCC and others have come to in all of the various scenarios that they model: if the world wants to get to net zero, then, as you start constraining emissions, you reach an inflection point where the cost of firming starts to go exponential. That's we're seeing in Europe, and that's what we are starting to see in Australia. The answer that the IPCC, the OECD and the IEA have come to is to point to the fact that, as they look around the IEA member nations, the lowest-cost of power considering not only levelised systems but systems cost is long-run nuclear power. Even for new build nuclear power, when you look at systems costs, it is the cheapest form of power. So there is an answer to getting to net zero while still having affordable, reliable power, but what it requires is for people to say, 'Wind and solar have a place but it is not the answer.' There is a need for firming with a clean, reliable source and the best engineering and economists in the world tell us that the cheapest and most affordable way to achieve that is to remove the prohibition we have on nuclear power and to invest in Australia's future. 15:19 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I am actually pretty pleased with this motion to take note today. It is good to have an opportunity to come in and talk about the budget. I am really proud to talk about our budget and I'm really proud to be part of a government which, after only a few months, is already delivering for Australians. This is a good position to be in. It must really suck to be part of a government that, for a decade, delivered so little for Australians. Dr Chalmers handed down a budget last night that delivers responsible cost-of-living relief, which is really important, targeted investments to build a stronger and more resilient economy and budget repair which looks to address the waste and rorts of the last decade—sensible, reasonable initiatives to get the budget under control whilst also making sure that we provide support Australians in need. Let's talk about some of these cost-of-living measures. Let's talk about one of my favourite topics—early learning. In this budget we deliver on our commitment to make early learning more affordable for 1.26 million families. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 I will take that interjection gladly, Senator Ciccone: 1.26 million Australian families. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Senator Hughes, it is really significant. The first five years is when 90 per cent of the brain development happens. If you don't form those connections early in early childhood education, children don't have the opportunity for them to form. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Senator Hughes, I think I have the call. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Order! Through me, Senator Smith. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Sorry; through you, Deputy President: I think I have the call. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Yes. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Early childhood education is incredibly important. With 1.26 million more— Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Through you, Deputy President: I think I have the call. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 You do have the call. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes, order! Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Do I have the call? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I am not giving Senator Hughes the call; I am just calling her to order. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Shall I continue? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Please proceed. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 This is my opportunity; not Senator Hughes's. I will go back: 1.26 million more families will have access to more affordable early childhood learning. It will make a huge difference to children's lives and a huge difference to parents' lives. Of course, it is not just about those critical brain connections, which will happen because more kids get to go to an early learning setting; it is also about ensuring that more Australian families can get back to work. Particularly for women, who we know shoulder the burden of care far more disproportionately than their partners, it is about getting back to work. It is really significant. I will turn to health. I know we had some questions on health today. We are slashing the PBS maximum general co-payment to $30 a script. Again, after a decade of failure on health care, of undermining Medicare and of undermining our public healthcare system, Labor is putting money behind our commitment to bring back Medicare to the prominence and the significance it deserves. A fundamental feature of our society is being able to access affordable health care—indeed, free health care—when you need it. It has been undermined by those opposite for a decade. We are making serious investments in our public healthcare system—investments I am deeply proud of. But there is more: 480,000 fee-free TAFE places; 20,000 university places for disadvantaged Australians; and, yes, our Powering Australia Plan, investing in cheaper, cleaner energy after a decade of no policy from those opposite—oh, sorry, 20 policies. Was it 20? I can't remember how many. There was definitely no strategic policy direction and possibly 20 policies that never managed to see the light of day. So there is serious investment and stability when it comes to climate policy, which we know is what the private sector has been calling out for for a decade to guide investment and to guide those decisions. We are getting on with that job, too. Also, there is more affordable housing, which is very, very important, with our Housing Accord. I haven't got to parental leave yet. We've committed to six months paid parental leave by 2026—another measure which will make a significant difference in terms of continuing that connection between women and the workforce and encouraging both partners to take time in those critical six months to spend time with their children. They are just some of the big announcements when it comes to the cost of living. In my home state of South Australia, we have made more commitments that we have funded responsibly but for really important things like rebuilding the Yadu health clinic in Ceduna and investing in community batteries—another really significant project. This budget is taking responsible efforts to combat the cost-of-living crisis before us. I am really proud of it, and really proud to be a part of a government that works, that turns up and that does something. 15:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Before I go into what I was originally going to speak about, I might point out to Senator Smith that this budget is going to spend $4.5 billion in child care to not create one new spot. That's one new spot of child care not being created under $4.5 billion of spending. I understand Senator Smith's children are very young, so she may not have gone through this process; mine are a bit older. There's nothing for me in the budget, for older children, by the way. It's only good if your kids are really little and you want to send them to child care. What's going to happen—and I think we're going to see this next year—is that families currently in child care will probably go from three days to four, because most childcare centres have their books closed. So there are no new spots being created, no new centres—nothing. There's $4.5 billion to allow families to go, maybe, from two days to four or three days to four. It'll be really interesting when we have a look at this in the next 12 or so months and see how many new childcare spots are created, because it will be a big, fat zero. There's $4.5 billion for the families already in child care. It's not creating one new spot. There's nothing for the parents and families that want to stay at home with their children. They've added six extra weeks to a Paid Parental Leave scheme—six weeks—but nothing for those parents who want to stay at home with their children for those five years when their brains are so busy developing, as Senator Smith points out. It's only to go into those childcare centres. Perhaps that's where they think the indoctrination can start. What we saw last night was a budget that offers nothing for families. It offers nothing towards the pressures of living. In fact, it gives each and every family a bill of $2,000 for Christmas. We warned you it wasn't going to be easy under Albanese! We're seeing that every day. Inflation's up at 7.1 per cent now. There's not a lot of wriggle room. Senator Ciccone 281503 A point of order, Deputy President— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Yes. Senator Hughes, if you're going to say that of the Prime Minister he should be referred to by his correct title. Please refer to the Prime Minister. I was going to remind you at the end of your contribution. Senator HUGHES 273828 Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for pointing that out. In fact, maybe you can point out to some of your colleagues that sit in front of you that they should refer to senators on this side of the chamber— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes, through me. This is not a debate. Restrain yourselves unless— Senator HUGHES 273828 It would be nice to see those standards applied across the board, Senator Ciccone, but I know you are one of the few with integrity that sit on the other side. What we know is that—97 times—we were all promised $275 off our power bill. Those who understand the energy market know that there are more renewables in the market than ever before, but what's happening to power bills? Up they go, up they go and up they go. We're going to see an increase in power bills. We're probably going to see calls again to not put your dishwasher on after 6 pm. So for all those families who now have the extra six weeks paid parental leave, don't go washing those nappies or bibs after 6 pm—because the power's not on; you can't afford the power. You can't afford the power for all that extra time at home developing those brains. We know that those brains needing to be developed in our young children don't count if they're in the regions. There's been millions of dollars pulled from autism centres in regional Queensland, because families with autism don't count to those opposite. They only like to support the 32 per cent of Australians that actually voted for those opposite—punishing the other 68 per cent of Australians. When we talk about renewable energy and this cheaper energy that was planned, and how it was all going to come through with an 82 per cent renewable target by 2030, what I thought I'd point out—even for those on my far left because I don't think they understand what the actual requirements of this are—is that 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines will need to be installed every month until 2030. So I'm just wondering—we're nearly at the end of October. Where are the first 40 going, and where are the next 40 going in November and the 40 after that in December? That's 120 needed by the end of the year. I'm sure we'll get an update on where those 120 wind turbines, by the end of the year, are going to be installed to ensure that we can work towards Mr Bowen's target. On top of that, more than 22,000 500-watt panels need to be installed every day. Where are they going? Over prime agricultural land? Who's going to make them? The Uyghurs in China? We don't seem to have a problem with slave labour when it comes to solar panels. We don't seem to have a problem with the landfill they create once they're finished with. We don't have any problems with that. We need over 60 million solar panels by 2030. For those in the gallery, we need 60 million. Have a look at where they're going to go—on your house, in your backyard, on agricultural land—along with those wind turbines. Question agreed to. Budget 65 15:30 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice she asked today relating to the budget. Budgets matter. They are a government's roadmap. With every budget dollar it allocates, a government signposts what it stands for and who it stands with. Budgets are about choices, and choice is about what you value. Choice is about whether you want to make Australia fairer or want to look after the top end of town and leave others behind. In this budget, Labor have made a clear choice. Their choice to retain stage 3 tax cuts will widen income, gender and intergenerational inequality, as will other choices they have made. They retained negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits in relation to housing and they've refused to tax the windfall profits of the gas industry, unlike so many other countries that have chosen to share those windfall gains with citizens. Indeed, the government's tax take from our existing oil and gas tax—the PRRT—will actually fall by $450 million in this budget. What a failure of tax policy in the gas boom. These decisions benefit corporations and the wealthy. They flow much more to men than to women. They deliver much more for older Australians than for younger. They widen inequality. In giving away so much money to those who need it least, they narrow the opportunities to assist those who need it most. Appallingly, there was no help in this budget for those most in need in our society—those living on JobSeeker and youth allowance. That's a million Australians amongst the 3.3 million who live in poverty. It's one in eight of us. Appallingly, it's one in six of our kids. The ratio of our kids who live in poverty is a statistic that should appear in any measure of wellbeing. Labor chose in this budget not to increase JobSeeker. Two weeks ago, with Senator Janet Rice, I met with a group of people living on JobSeeker who were brought together by South Australia's Anti-Poverty Network. They were living lives of anxious juggling of last dollars and complex bus-route navigation to get to Foodbank. They talked about the long queues at free-food outlets in Adelaide. They talked about rent. They often cannot afford food or medicine. They bear the scars of poverty on their faces and on their bodies. They cannot afford the health care they need, their kids don't make it to school excursions and their teeth hurt every day. They're living on $48 a day, well below the poverty line, in this very wealthy country. It's shameful. Last night's budget was a chance to help these and all Australians who are facing the very real cost-of-living pressures documented in the budget by redirecting the stage 3 tax cuts. These cuts—a quarter of a trillion dollars—flow to very wealthy Australians, mostly men and older people, instead of helping those who are most in need. Stage 3 tax cuts, a windfall tax on gas, cutting back on housing or super tax breaks—there are a lot of unfair taxes to choose from and that could have been used to help Australians. Australia does not have a tax revenue problem. It has a priorities problem, it has a courage problem, it has a leadership problem and it has a problem of failing to stand up to sectional interests whether they be coal, oil and gas or other vested interests. The cost-of-living crisis is real. Rent, power and food—all are rising against the background of flatlining wages, falling growth and rising unemployment. Why has the Labor government stuck with a $9,000 annual tax cut for the very wealthy, striking a real blow against Australia's progressive income tax system, while leaving low income families struggling to pay for food and power? There is no economic theory or evidence to support the idea that giving a tax break to older, wealthy Australians—men, mostly—will increase their work participation, productivity or GDP. There is none of that. There is however a powerful bucketload of evidence that says that helping women get to and stay in work, helping working carers, has a massive effect on work participation, productivity and GDP, and gender inequality. We can make a difference for our kids and for women. In this budget we could have done many things and made a real difference for those at the bottom end of our society, helping them to face cost-of-living pressures and narrowing inequality. Instead, Labor have backed in a tax measure that mostly benefits wealthy men while offering women no superannuation on their paid parental leave, no matching of their normal pay rate on their paid leave and making them wait four years just to get 26 weeks of paid parental leave, which is half the international standard. We can do so much better. Question agreed to. PETITIONS 66 PETITIONS Townsville Against Live Export Incorporated 66 NOTICES 66 NOTICES Presentation 66 15:35 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and its chair, Linda White, I give notice of the intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5 for eight sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021; the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health Measures No. 9) Regulations 2021; the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Prime Minister and Cabinet Measures No. 11) Regulations 2021; and the Industry Research and Development (Underwriting New Generation Investments Program) Instrument 2021; and business of the Senate notice of motion 3 for 14 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Service of Documents) Regulations 2022. Presentation 67 CONDOLENCES 67 CONDOLENCES Spender, Mr John Michael, KC 67 15:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 October 2022 of Mr John Michael Spender KC, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of North Sydney, New South Wales, from 1980 to 1990. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 67 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Industry Research and Development (Underwriting New Generation Investments Program) Instrument 2021 67 Disallowance 67 15:38 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Industry Research and Development (Underwriting New Generation Investments Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed. 15:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Australian households are hurting, with high energy bills and rising interest rates. Electricity and gas prices will rise by something like 50 per cent in 2023. The Australian Energy Regulator has warned that energy prices will remain high for years, driven by generator closures and a looming shortfall in gas supply, and Labor has already broken its $275 lower energy bill election promise. It does not have a plan for new, reliable 24/7 energy generation. The Underwriting New Generation Investments Program is essential to keep delivering the dispatchable energy generation Australia requires to keep the lights on and the pressure on prices. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BUDGET 68 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 68 15:45 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Colbeck, I move: That the order relating to estimates hearings for 2022 be amended to read as follows: (1) That the 2022-23 Budget estimates hearings be scheduled as follows: Friday, 28 October until no later than 5 pm (Group A, except as provided for in paragraph (1A)) Monday, 7 November until no later than 11 pm (Group A) Tuesday, 8 November until no later than 1 pm (Group A) Tuesday, 8 November from no earlier than 2 pm until no later than 11 pm (Group B) Wednesday, 9 November and Thursday, 10 November until no later than 11 pm (Group B). (1A) In order to provide for the examination of certain outcomes and parliamentary departments on the first day of budget estimates hearings, on Friday, 28 October, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee examination of portfolios, commencing with Finance, Outcomes 1 and 2, from 9 am until midday, immediately followed by the Parliamentary Budget Office to 12.30 pm. (2) That cross portfolio estimates hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 11 November but not restricted to that day. (3) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to committees agreed to by the Senate. (4) That committees meet in the following groups: Group A: Environment and Communications Finance and Public Administration Legal and Constitutional Affairs Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Group B: Community Affairs Economics Education and Employment Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. (5) That the committees report to the Senate on Tuesday, 29 November 2022. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 68, standing in the name of Senator Colbeck, moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.      

The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MOTIONS 69 MOTIONS Thorpe, Senator Lidia 69 15:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: (1) That Senator Thorpe be required to attend the Senate chamber immediately after the conclusion of formal motions on Wednesday, 26 October 2022 to make a statement of not more than 15 minutes, addressing: (a) the nature of her relationship with Dean Martin, former president of Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang; and (b) the allegations made by ABC media on 20 October 2022 that: (i) Senator Thorpe had been made aware by staff that because of her position on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which was receiving confidential briefings about bikie gangs and organised crime, her relationship and continued communications with Mr Martin put her at an extreme risk of being extorted and create perceptions of a conflict of interest, (ii) despite being informed of the serious risks, Senator Thorpe chose to ignore the warning and keep her relationship with Mr Martin hidden from the Leader of the Australian Greens, Mr Bandt, and the committee, and (iii) in an effort to conceal her ongoing relationship with Mr Martin from the public and the Senate, Senator Thorpe communicated with Mr Martin using encrypted communications app Signal, clearing their conversations once a week, and never met at their respective homes; and (c) whether information related to Senator Thorpe's work for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement was provided to Mr Martin, or any other associate of an outlaw motorcycle gang via encrypted communications or any other means. (2) That any senator may move a motion to take note of Senator Thorpe's statement, that debate on the motion may proceed for a period of up to 60 minutes, and that senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each. 15:50 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 We believe that the matter that is the subject of this request for attendance in the chamber has been appropriately dealt with by referral to the Privileges Committee, so the opposition will not be supporting this motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business motion No. 66 in the name of Senator Hanson be agreed to.      

The Senate divided. [15:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

2 AYES Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) 51 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived

DOCUMENTS 70 DOCUMENTS Global Methane Pledge 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 15:56 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland by leave—I move general business notices of motion Nos 61 to 65 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 61 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on 2 November 2022, the following: (a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the Department) regarding the Global Methane Pledge that was committed to on 23 October 2022 (the GMP); (b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails internally within the Department regarding the GMP; (c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (d) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (e) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Foreign Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (f) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Prime Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (g) any modelling conducted by the Department regarding the impact of the GMP; (h) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Department and stakeholders with reference to the GMP; and (i) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Minister and/or their office and stakeholders with reference to the GMP. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 62 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong, by no later than midday on 2 November 2022, the following: (a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the Department) regarding the Global Methane Pledge that was committed to on 23 October 2022 (the GMP); (b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails internally within the Department regarding the GMP; (c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (d) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Foreign Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (e) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Prime Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (f) any modelling conducted by the Department regarding the impact of the GMP; (g) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Department and stakeholders with reference to the GMP; and (h) Any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Minister and/or their office and stakeholders with reference to the GMP. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 63 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong, by no later than midday on 2 November 2022, the following: (a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water regarding the Global Methane Pledge that was committed to on 23 October 2022 (the GMP); (b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Foreign Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (d) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Prime Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; and (e) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Minister and/or their office and stakeholders with reference to the GMP. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 64 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, by no later than midday on 2 November 2022, the following: (a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Prime Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department) regarding the Global Methane Pledge that was committed to on 23 October 2022 (the GMP); (b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails internally within the Department regarding the GMP; (c) any modelling conducted by the Department regarding the impact of the GMP; (d) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Department and stakeholders with reference to the GMP; and (e) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Minister and/or their office and stakeholders with reference to the GMP. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 65 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, by no later than midday on 2 November 2022, the following: (a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Department) regarding the Global Methane Pledge that was committed to on 23 October 2022 (the GMP); (b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails internally within the Department regarding the GMP; (c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Prime Minister and/or their office, regarding the GMP; (d) any modelling conducted by the Department regarding the impact of the GMP; (e) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Department and stakeholders with reference to the GMP; and (f) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes and emails regarding meetings conducted between the Minister and/or their office and stakeholders with reference to the GMP. 15:56 Senator JKM Tasmania McKIM (—) (): Can I please indicate that the Greens have a different position on some of these motions and we would like the question to be put separately. Our position on Nos 61 and 62 is different to our position on motions Nos 63 to 65. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim has indicated he wants them split out, so we will deal with general business notices of motion Nos 61 and 62 together. The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 61 and 62 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that general business notices of motion Nos 63 to 65, moved by Senator McDonald, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 16:04 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move general business notice of motion Nos 56 and 57: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 56 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 2 November 2022: (a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022, in relation to: (i) Australia's preparations for co-hosting the 15th meeting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei Darussalam, scheduled for early November, or (ii) the provision of an invitation to the Government of Myanmar to attend the meeting; (b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) Australia's preparations for co-hosting the 15th meeting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei Darussalam, scheduled for early November, or (ii) the provision of an invitation to the Government of Myanmar to attend the meeting; and (c) the written invitation for Myanmar to attend the 15th meeting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei Darussalam, scheduled for early November. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 57 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 2 November 2022: (a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Defence to the Minister for Defence and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) Australia's preparations for co-hosting the 15th meeting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei Darussalam, scheduled for early November, and (ii) the provision of an invitation to the Government of Myanmar to attend the meeting; (b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) Australia's preparations for co-hosting the 15th meeting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei Darussalam, scheduled for early November, and (ii) the provision of an invitation to the Government of Myanmar to attend the meeting; and (c) the written invitation for Myanmar to attend the 15th meeting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei Darussalam, scheduled for early November.   16:04 Senator S 250156 Western Australia TEELE-JOHN () (): I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 The object of this OPD is of critical importance to the Senate and to the public. We are seeking to obtain from the government information provided to the defence minister in relation to their co-hosting of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine in Brunei in early November. This is of utmost importance because present at that meeting will be representatives of the military junta currently in control of Myanmar. The public, the National Unity Government and the Myanmar diaspora deserve to know exactly what is being told to our defence minister as they prepare to cohabitate a space alongside such representatives of such a reprehensible regime. 16:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government won't be supporting this order for the production of documents. Australia is greatly concerned about ongoing human rights abuses by the Myanmar military regime, including recent reports of civilians killed by military airstrikes in the Kachin state. We will continue to speak clearly and consistently in support of human rights around the world and we will act. Australia has reduced contact with the Myanmar military regime to only essential engagement. While engagement is unavoidable, we take every opportunity to convey Australia's grave concerns about the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in Myanmar and strongly condemn the actions of the military regime. Neither the Minister for Foreign Affairs nor the Minister for Defence will attend the workshop in Brunei for the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus Experts' Working Group on Military Medicine. While Australia is a co-host, this is an ASEAN led meeting with the final decision on participation with ASEAN. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 56 and 57 be agreed to. Question agreed to. Hells Gate Dam 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 16:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt, by no later than 9.30 am on 27 October 2022, the business case prepared by the Townsville Enterprise Development Centre for the Hells Gates Dam. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 54 standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.      

The Senate divided. [16:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Budget 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:15 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday Thursday, 27 October 2022, all correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and any Premier, Chief Minister, Treasurer or minister of any state or territory government regarding requests for, or approval of, Australian Government funding for projects or programs in the 2022-23 Federal Budget announced on 25 October 2022. 16:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Our budget delivers on our plan the Australian people voted for. The budget contains billions of dollars for major investment projects in our cities and our regions, in every state and territory. The Albanese government wants Australian regions to thrive. Importantly, the government is delivering two new regional programs worth $1 billion, working with communities and local councils to invest in infrastructure in a way that is transparent, fair and more sustainable. We are working with local communities to deliver sound and planned infrastructure in regional Australia that creates jobs, builds opportunity and unlocks economic growth and productivity. It's a responsible budget that starts to clean up the mess the Liberals left behind and begins to build the better future the Australian people and people in regional Australia deserve. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 55, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 75 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Australian Education Amendment (2022 Capital Funding Indexation) Regulations 2022 75 Disallowance 75 16:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Australian Education Amendment (2022 Capital Funding Indexation) Regulations 2022, made under the Australian Education Act 2013, be disallowed [F2022L01167]. Twelve sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed. 16:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this disallowance motion. The Capital Grants Program provides funding for non-government schools to improve capital infrastructure where they otherwise may not have access to sufficient capital resources. The Capital Grants Program has strong, long-term bipartisan support. Funding is allocated to schools according to identified student need. We made the point before the election that we remain committed to working with the states and territories to get every school to a hundred per cent of its fair funding level, and that absolutely remains the case. 16:20 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 These regulations would increase the capital funding indexation percentage for block grant authorities for non-government schools in 2022, thereby increasing federal funding to capital works for private schools by $15.6 million up to a total annual sum of $194.5 million. As of last night's budget, private school funding across the forward estimates will now be $1.7 billion more than the amount the previous government committed in their final budget. A greater proportion of federal funding for schools is now going to private schools, which is worse than under the Morrison government. This disallowance would maintain the indexation for capital works for non-government schools at its current rate. It doesn't suddenly rip money away from private schools. They still get $179 million per year for capital works. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to. Senator Lambie, once the doors are locked you shouldn't be allowed in. On this occasion it's not going to make any difference, but really you should not have been allowed in. I called, 'Lock the doors,' and the doors had been closed.    

The Senate divided. [16:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 42 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BUSINESS 77 BUSINESS Rearrangement 77 16:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1. Leave granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move the motion as amended: That: (1) On Wednesday, 26 October 2022: (a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment; (b) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm; (c) the routine of business from 7.30 pm be consideration of government business only, in the following order: Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022—message from the House of Representatives to be reported Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022 (d) if, by 9.30 pm, consideration of the bills has not concluded, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate; (e) paragraph (d) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (f) if the message from the House of Representatives concerning the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 is reported after 9.30 pm, a minister may move a motion relating to that message immediately and the question then be put and determined without amendment or debate; and (g) the Senate adjourn without debate following consideration of the bills, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is the earlier. (2) On Thursday, 27 October 2022: (a) general business orders of the day for consideration of bills only not be proceeded with; (b) the routine of business from 9 am be: (i) Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, (ii) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022, and (ii) government business only; (c) if, at 11 am, consideration of the bills in paragraph (b) has not concluded, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate; (d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (e) the routine of business from 5.30 pm till 7.15 pm be the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022—second reading speeches only; (f) the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 7.15 pm till 8.15 pm, or after the second reading debate of the bill concludes, whichever is the earlier; and (g) the routine of business from 8.15 pm be: (i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and (ii) adjournment. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 78 Reference 78 16:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Australian Electoral Commission—Proposed fit-out of new premises at London Quarter Block 40, Section 100, Canberra City, ACT. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I table a statement in relation to the works. Question agreed to. BUDGET 78 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 78 16:27 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate requires the Economics Legislation Committee to invite the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Ombudsman of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, Mr David Locke, to attend the committee's 2022-23 Budget estimates hearings on Thursday, 10 November 2022 at 9 am to give one hour of evidence. 16:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 It is not appropriate for AFCA to appear at budget estimates. AFCA is not a government department or regulatory agency. It is a not-for-profit public company and it is not publicly funded. AFCA have made themselves available to parliament for oversight and transparency through various committees. Senator Bragg had the opportunity to ask questions of AFCA when they appeared before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee as recently as 14 October. The government does not support a precedent where the Senate as a whole negotiate witness lists for respective committee hearings. That should remain a role for individual committees to establish. This is a political stunt, as we often see from Senator Bragg, and we will not support this motion. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:29 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 2 November 2022: (a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of the Treasury to the Treasurer and/or the Treasurer's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grants program, or (ii) an audit of the program; and (b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between Department of the Treasury and the Treasurer and/or the Treasurer's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grants program, or (ii) an audit of the program. Question agreed to. Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:29 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 2 November 2022: (a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grants program, or (ii) an audit of the program; and (b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grants program; or (ii) an audit of the program. Question agreed to. Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant 79 Order for the Production of Documents 79 16:29 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 2 November 2022: (a) any briefing materials provided by Tourism Australia to the Minister for Trade and Tourism and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grants program, or (ii) an audit of the program; and (b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between Tourism Australia and the Minister for Trade and Tourism and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 in relation to: (i) the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grants program, or (ii) an audit of the program. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 79 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 79 16:29 The 112096 PRESIDENT (): The following proposal from Senator David Pocock has been received under standing order 75: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The rate of JobSeeker needs to be raised in order to lift more than 3 million Australians out of poverty and stop 1 in 6 Australian children growing up in poverty, given the current cost of living crisis that last night's budget forecast will worsen with huge increases to energy costs, food and rent among other essentials. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's discussions. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly. 16:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Behind some of the welcome and big-ticket items in last night's budget, like the new housing accord that aspires to deliver a million homes over the next five years, expanded childcare subsidies, more paid parental leave and cheaper medicine, there lies a bigger, much more worrying story. It's a story of rising inflation, rising interest rates, slowing GDP growth, rising unemployment and rising costs of living across the country. The last one is a real killer—a 56 per cent forecast rise in electricity prices, a 44 per cent forecast rise in gas prices and a jump in both groceries and rent. The Treasurer is saying we're unlikely to see a rise in real wages for at least another couple of years. Despite this acknowledgement, the government hasn't done anything in terms of raising the rate for JobSeeker, Austudy or Commonwealth rent assistance. I absolutely understand and commend the need for 'responsible economic management', the need to 'live within our means' and the many other phrases bandied around this place when it comes to the budget. But, equally, I simply don't accept that we can let this crisis continue. The budget is about priorities, and what we've heard from the new Labor government in their first budget is that the three million Australians living in poverty are not a priority. The one in six children across Australia who are growing up in poverty are not a priority to the new government. We have to think about this in terms of the things that we are happy to spend money on. At a time when fossil fuel companies are pulling in record profits, we're still happy to subsidise them. We're still happy to pour money into things like the Middle Arm project. That's $1.9 billion here and a few billion dollars there for the gas industry. But, when it comes to Australians in our communities who desperately need the support, we're silent. The government had an opportunity to increase JobSeeker. Forty-eight dollars a day is not enough to live on. We heard the government pat themselves on the back when the rate was indexed and went from $46 to $48. But $48 is still nowhere near enough. Let's be clear: the choices that we make in this place and in the other place are keeping one in six children across Australia—one of the most wealthy countries in the world—living in poverty. It has huge implications, not just for those kids' futures but for all of our futures, to have one in six children growing up in poverty and three million Australians living below the poverty line. We know times are tough. Here in the ACT, our front-line services are stretched to breaking point. Food pantries have massive lines and are battling to get enough staff. People with jobs are struggling. How do we not support to get back into the labour market people who are in between jobs, looking for jobs and trying to get their lives back on track? I really implore the government to think more about this. You're governing for the Australian people. You're answerable to those three million Australians who, through your decisions, are being left to live on $48 a day. For those one in six children who are growing up in poverty, the rest of their lives will be shaped by their experience of growing up in poverty, of growing up not being able to afford things, of looking at their friends at school and asking, 'Why can't I have that? Why do I have to live like that?' These are the choices that we are privileged to make in this place, and I implore the government to raise the rate before or at the next budget in May. 16:35 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I thank Senator Pocock for this motion, but I have to say that there is not a day that goes by when I do not take this issue extremely seriously. We recognise that living on income support payments is extremely challenging. As a government, however, we face competing calls on the budget which, sadly, we have to make very difficult choices on. In the budget that we have just done, we have sought to put some money back into people's pockets, including through cheaper child care, expanded paid parental leave, cheaper medicine, more affordable housing and support for low-income households that are earning wages. To demonstrate how complicated this issue is—and I don't mean to overstate it in terms of complexity, but this is the way the issue has to be managed—4.7 million Australians received a boost to their government payments just through the indexation adjustments made in September this year. Now, I'm not saying that that fixes the problem, but what I am saying to you is that that increase, in and of itself, adds about $10 billion worth of costs to the bottom line of the budget over the forward estimates. So, when we look to support families and we look to support households, particularly the most vulnerable ones in our society, we need to make sure that the changes that we make are sustainable. The rate will be considered again in the next budget, but there is little point in having a one-off supplement boost here or there, as we've had a history of doing, if we are simply setting up a system that is unsustainable. I also think we need to look at the whole package of needs of a family, and it's important to recognise that it's not $48 a day when we're dealing with families, that we need to include family tax benefit A and B and that these, along with rent assistance, are targeted payments for low-income households. When it comes to looking at government policies in the future in this regard, we need to be looking at the holistic system of support that people get. I note in this regard that the House of Representatives currently has an inquiry into Workforce Australia and is also doing an inquiry into ParentsNext. ParentsNext has purportedly been a program to support parents with young children to get ready for re-entering the workforce. Historically, it has had a whole bunch of obligations attached to it, which I note have been suspended in recent times. Programs like that, that have been driven by the last government, haven't really known whether they are a parenting support program or whether they are an employment pathway program. I note, in that regard, that the resources that we put into parts of the community for programs like that, and the resources that we put into places like Medicare, are only good if people can use them. And so we need to continue to deliberate about where our funding is best spent, in a social welfare and community sense. That is why we are looking very actively at these issues, for example, through the inquiry on Workforce Australia in the lower house. We acknowledge that the release of the Poverty in Australia report 2022: a snapshot, for example— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Pratt, your time has expired. Senator Brockman. 16:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the mover of this MPI, Senator Pocock: I will start by noting the change of tone from those opposite on this topic since we were in government. When they were sitting on this side, it was all very easy—to throw around promises, to make claims and to push barrows, none of which could ever be fulfilled if they'd had to take a responsible economic approach to the budget. The sad reality of what we've seen over the last 24 hours in terms of cost-of-living pressures impacting all Australians, including those on social welfare, is that there's very little in this budget for them. In fact, we've seen an abject failure on one of the key promises—on energy costs. And we've seen an abject failure by the Treasurer, just today, to explain the promise to deliver a $275 reduction in electricity costs, which would make a real difference, particularly to low-income Australians. But the Treasurer today, in his mishearing of a question in the Press Club, and in his subsequent response in question time in the House, has shown that he's not even sure if the $275 was in the budget or wasn't in the budget. If it was in the budget, then it is clearly a broken promise, because the budget shows that electricity prices are going to rise—and not just by a small amount, but by something like 50 per cent. In a situation where Australians, particularly low-income Australians, rely on a budget taking these kinds of issues seriously, this government has failed the first test. It has failed the first test—of achieving what it said it was going to achieve—and it has failed the test of competence—of answering questions on what are very straightforward issues. Are they going to deliver on the $275? Is it in the budget or not? These aren't complex questions, these are easy questions. A lot of Australians, including Australians on income support, would like the answer to them and, unfortunately, we just get confusion from the Treasurer. In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to set the record straight on the issue, because sometimes there's a lot of misinformation distributed about the coalition government's record in this area. In particular, in the last couple of years of the coalition government, it provided unprecedented payments right across the economy to assist those on low incomes and to assist those on welfare—to assist those who were doing it very, very tough in an unprecedented time—in fact, $32 billion in emergency support payments, which the current government now often labels as wasted spending or, somehow, a poor expenditure of money. At the time, of course, they supported it, and it kept the economy strong. In fact, we delivered an economy that was in very good shape, that was growing and had delivered record low unemployment, with a growing number of people in jobs and extraordinary opportunities in the economy for people who were looking for a job. The coalition government also delivered the first increase in support payments—don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I'm right—since 1986. So the coalition government actually had a very proud record in this area. We also made it clear to the Australian people that there were economic headwinds including inflation and that a sensible response by the Commonwealth government was required as we shepherded the economy forward. That is the challenge for the Labor government, and they failed the first test. 16:46 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Last night, we watched the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, and the Labor government deliver a budget that is going to give tax cuts of $9,000 a year to the wealthy—to billionaires, to everyone in this place—while there was absolutely zero in the budget last night for the millions of Australians who are struggling to survive on income support. This was a Labor government budget. What is the point of Labor? Poverty is a political choice, and last night, Labor showed they had made their choice. In this budget, they have chosen to give tax cuts to the wealthy at the cost of $254 billion over the next 10 years, rather than doing anything for the millions of Australians, including the one in six children in Australia, who are living in poverty. This is not complex. These are people who are absolutely struggling. Every day, millions of Australians are having to make decisions about whether they eat, whether they pay for their medicines or whether they pay their rent. I recently spoke to one person struggling to survive on the JobSeeker payment who told me: I'll be 63 in a couple of weeks. No one will employ me at my age I went food shopping the other day. For the first time in my life I contemplated shop lifting because I could not afford the food I wanted to buy. My next door neighbour is older, an ex tradie, his knees and back are gone due to hard work, he is a year away from the pension, he is shoplifting food to survive, he is giving me some of it. I have volunteered all my life but due to a bad motorbike accident that almost severed my right hand 10 years ago I have had to stop doing that. I was a volunteer Wildlife rescuer I have volunteered for The Womens Hospital The Childrens Hospital Op shops When I lived in a regional town I volunteered with The CWA The CFA The SES I have consistently put back into society and now I and many like me have been left behind on the scrap heap, forced to contemplate breaking the law to eat. I would prefer my name remain anonymous as I don't want people to know that I'm considering stealing food, I don't want that "stigma" attached to me even though I'm living a stigmatised life while on Job Seeker. Raise the rate and lower the retirement age. I'm tired We are living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet people are forced to shoplift to eat and there are tax cuts that are going to give the wealthy $9,000 a year extra in their pocket. It was delivered last night in a Labor budget. The budget also told us that rents are increasing sharply and that electricity is going to go up 56 per cent. This budget does not cater for people who are just barely scraping by. It punishes people living in poverty. If this had been a Greens budget, there would have been different choices being made. It would have included a livable income guarantee, ensuring support was there for everyone who needed it because poverty is a political choice. We would have raised the rate of JobSeeker above the poverty line, to above $88 a day, abolished all punitive parts of our income support system and returned the provision of employment services to the Commonwealth. Our livable income guarantee would have sat side by side with the Greens' plans to build a million affordable homes, to increase wages and to reduce the costs of essential services like dental care and child care by making them free. We know this is possible if we're willing to make the billionaires and the big corporations and the very wealthy pay their fair share rather than giving them tax cuts. Instead we are going to be paying out hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Lifting people out of poverty can be done. We saw, during the height of the pandemic, the government double JobSeeker, raising it above the poverty line, and abolish all mutual obligations. During this time people were able to improve their lives and meet their basic needs, and their mental and physical health improved. Advocacy groups and people living in poverty have repeatedly called on Labor to raise the rate of income support, yet Labor has failed to listen. This budget has done nothing to improve the lives of the 5.1 million Australians struggling to survive on meagre income support payments. 16:51 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Labor's budget is a disaster. The cost of living is going up, power prices are going up, taxes are going up and unemployment is going up. The only thing that isn't going up is your wages. This Labor government continually promises to reduce the cost of living, while simultaneously increasing the cost of living. Their strategy to lower prices is to increase prices. I can't, for the life of me, work out which is more incredible: the claims that this Labor government makes or the fact that this government expects Australians to believe their claims. During the election campaign, Labor promised many times that they would reduce power prices by approximately $275. Instead, power prices are set to go up by more than 50 per cent. This Labor government insists that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, or at least it will be just as soon as they spend $10 billion here and another $10 billion there. There seems to be a direct relationship between how much of our money Labor spend on their renewable energy fantasy and how many times they assure us that it will result in cheaper power. It'll just take a few more billion dollars, as always. If you believe that, you have the one prerequisite necessary to do the energy minister's job. And what is that prerequisite? It is wishful thinking, that's what it is. The energy crisis—which, in turn, is increasing the cost of everything else—has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine, as some would have you believe. Labor made its promise to reduce power prices after Russia invaded Ukraine. It has everything to do with Labor, the Greens and the closet Greens on all sides of this chamber who are sabotaging cheap energy in this country. While Australia is pursuing frankly crazy climate policies, China is building more than half the world's coal-fired power plants, strengthening their economy and increasing their standard of living. At the same time, the price of food in Australia is going up, partly because of floods but mostly because of the skyrocketing costs of energy, making it more and more expensive to get Aussie food onto supermarket shelves. And now, for good measure, the Labor government also wants to lower methane, which will almost certainly become a tax on cows farting. That's what's going to happen: a tax on cows farting. It's going to drive up the cost of your average Aussie barbecue at the same time. The soaring cost of living is not just a problem for the unemployed. It is a problem for everyone: families paying off a mortgage, pensioners, retirees trying to keep cool in summer and warm in winter and businesses trying to employ people—everyone. In fact, as energy prices go through the roof, manufacturers are going to be forced to go offshore—probably to China, because China isn't crippled by crazy climate policies which obviously result in unaffordable energy—as it becomes harder for businesses to keep the doors open and the lights on. The real solution to the cost-of-living crisis is not a handout; it is affordable energy, getting rid of red and green tape and keeping government spending and taxes low so that Australia can be a land of opportunity. Raising the rate of JobSeeker is not a viable long-term solution. We absolutely have a responsibility to keep disadvantaged Australians well looked after, but the best way to do that is by creating conditions in which industry can thrive so that they can be gainfully employed. It is industry that creates jobs, not government. Increasing the size of our welfare programs will raise our already unsustainable debt level further. This will inevitably lead to higher taxes and make it harder for families and pensioners to look after themselves and harder for businesses to employ people. The government can't have skyrocketing power prices and a generous welfare system. The government can't trash our competitive advantage, which is cheap, reliable, abundant energy in the form of coal and gas, and then expect people to prosper. (Time expired) Budget 83 16:56 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID 217241 ENT ( Senator McGrath ) (): The President has also received the following letter from Senator Dean Smith: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese Labor Government has delivered a high taxing, high spending Budget that has no plan to address the cost of living crisis; predicts 140,000 Australians losing their jobs; slashes funding to regional and rural Australia; breaks Labor’s promise to the Australian people to reduce power prices by $275 annually, instead hiking power prices by 50 per cent; and that has left Australians poorer, with the average family being at least $2000 worse off by Christmas. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 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. 16:57 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I hope Australian families know how to swim, because the Labor Treasurer of just six months standing, Dr Jim Chalmers, has thrown them in the deep end and is not offering them a lifeline. This afternoon you'll hear coalition senators and Labor senators make their contributions and their observations about last night's budget, but let me share with the chamber what the Daily Telegraph had to say today: Bugger all—that's what the budget does to combat intense cost of living pressures being felt right now, but Jim Chalmers argues new immediate help would do more harm than good by adding to inflation. No lifeline for Australian families. The Financial Review this morning said: The Albanese government has warned of 'hard days to come' as it laid the groundwork for an agenda of tax increases and spending cuts with a federal budget that forecast debt and deficit over the next decade to be worse than just six months ago. And no lifeline for Australian families. The Australian said today: Jim Chalmers puts hard calls on hold in a forgettable economic statement. I think Labor took a huge liberty over the last six months by preparing the country for a budget which, at best, was an economic statement and, at worst, provides no confidence to Australian families as they face the very real and immediate impacts of the rising cost of living. Finally, Sky News said: This budget is about giving with one hand to families and telling them on the other hand, power prices are going to take it away again, if not more. Six months ago, Australian families put their faith in Labor. Labor's narrow election victory carried the hopes of many ordinary Australian families. And the news they woke up to this morning was that the priorities and needs of Australian families are of no interest to Labor, are of no interest to Anthony Albanese, are of no interest to Jim Chalmers. What did the budget say last night? The budget added to those 97 occasions already where Labor had promised a $275 cut in power prices. This budget confirms a more than 50 per cent increase in energy prices. Labor had promised to the Australian people in the lead-up to the election campaign there would be an improvement in real wages. The budget showed that real wages are going backwards. The budget also showed that Labor has dumped the tax cap, and Labor's plans are to deliver a sneaky new tax on investors and retirees. Let's see how far that goes when that particular Treasury bill comes to the Senate. The situation facing Australian families is stark. Petrol prices are on the rise. Mortgage costs are on the rise. Food prices are on the rise. And Mr Chalmers and the Prime Minister have decided that Australian families should suffer, that Australian families should be the front line of this country's defence in these challenging economic times. In his first speech as Prime Minister-elect on election night, Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, made his core promise very clear to Australians who did vote for him but also to Australians who didn't vote him: No one left behind because we should always look after the disadvantaged and the vulnerable— He went on to promise— But also no one held back, because we should always support aspiration and opportunity. At the first opportunity Labor had to put its values on display to our country, it decided it would not provide much-needed support and would not provide a lifeline to Australian families. It is a shocking, rude, sad revelation. Australian families would've gone to bed last night and woken up this morning realising the future ahead of them is bleak. 17:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales We've been here before, hearing these cost-of-living arguments from the opposition. I've said they lean in with their chin. Last time they leaned in with their entire body. Now the whole team are throwing themselves over the cliff. These people have no shame. They come here and lecture the Australian people that what they demanded at the last election, which we delivered last night, was a mistake. These are the people that brought down a trillion dollars of debt and showed nothing for it; they showed absolutely nothing for it. These are the people that had a design feature for low wages. They said low wages were a design feature of how they were going to run the economy—and guess what? That's what we got from them. That's what the consequences were. These are the same people that saw, for the first time in the history of this country, the middle class shrink under their watch. And they're coming in here and lecturing us about what should and shouldn't be done? Sorry, I keep forgetting—they have no policies, remember? That was official. They've got no plan, they've got no thought, they've got no strategy. We know the strategy they've adopted has done over people in this country for nine years now. Then you look at some of the areas where change has taken place. But think about what they've done in the aged-care sector. Think about what their position was on the aged-care sector—no support for aged-care workers or for feminised industries. Think about all the low-paid workers, the men and women of this country. Where were those opposite on the proposition for a dollar-an-hour wage increase? They opposed it. They come in here with no shame, every one of them, and say that they have a position that's right. Quite clearly, in the budget last night there were a whole series of critically important pieces that will make a change and a difference for thousands—and millions—of working Australians and people in our community. The cheaper childcare strategy: quite clearly, there are going to be millions of people better off as a result of the early education program. That is an investment in the future, not money given off to Alan Joyce with no accountability, $2 billion; not watching some of the biggest names in companies around this country that were given billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars turn around and spend it on bogus training packages. I mean no offence to Grill'd—I occasionally eat their burgers myself—but, I'll tell you what, giving them millions of dollars to set up a burger university, to train people for cheap labour, is the strategy they have. The difference for us is that we have a clear strategy: 180,000 places, fee-free, for TAFE and vocational education places. That will give capacity for our economy. It will give the ability for people to learn more. It will give an opportunity for our economy to be turned around, to have the skilled labour that we need from Australians. And there are those 20,000 new university places over the next two years—again, an investment in our future. It's an investment right now. It means that money that would be coming out of people's pockets to do those things isn't happening, but it's value-adding to the economy. It's value-adding to households. Expanding paid parental leave to six months—where are they about that? You don't think that's a cost-of-living saving? You don't think that's an advantage for men and women—women, in particular—in our community? You don't think that's an important gender-equity question that has value right across the economy? And there's more affordable housing. Seriously, you're going to sit here and say to the government, as the ex-government—the ones that shrank the middle class, that set low wages as a strategy, that turned around and gave us this housing crisis—while we're coming up with solutions on our side, that this is not a solution affecting the cost of living? Of course it is. It logically is. It has the capacity to. It has the obvious support for that outcome. Getting wages moving will be the great example. That will be the real test for these people with no shame. That will be the real test, to see whether they support improvements in employment relations arrangements in this country that will finally get wages moving and not put it off to the never-never—to do it as quickly, smartly and effectively as we possibly can, to make sure Australians get a better and fairer ago. 17:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in favour of the Matter of Public Importance moved by Senator Dean Smith. This budget contains page after page of regulations and schemes designed to centrally manage the economy, and extra bureaucrats to make sure that happens. Missing from this budget is real infrastructure. Queensland has lost Hells Gates Dam, despite a business case that clearly showed the dam would provide a return on investment. I thank the Senate for agreeing this afternoon to my document discovery, to bring that report to the public. Urannah Dam funding has been cancelled, a dam that would have grown Australia's high-value agriculture industry and made a substantial contribution to the government's own target of $100 billion of agricultural output at farm gate. The Hughenden Irrigation Project, a wonderful project in North Queensland, has been deferred despite the agricultural potential of the Flinders River black soil plains to bring prosperity to our north. Queensland deserves better than a Labor government that hates agriculture. Energy is missing from this budget. Nature-dependent power currently receives $13 billion a year in renewable energy subsidies. If the number of nature-dependent power plants is to increase, to meet the 2030 target, then the allowance for the increase in subsidies should be shown in this budget. Yet it's not. Where is the base-load power generation? Nowhere. Blackouts, here we come. In Wednesday's Financial Review the ABS announced that power prices in the September quarter rose 15.6 per cent or 60 per cent annualised. This is a catastrophe for struggling families and small businesses. How can any business have the confidence to invest when they see a basic business input blowing out, with no end in sight? This budget is an economic suicide note. One Nation supports productive capacity, less red tape, creating wealth and a future for everyday Australians, who are the core of our nation. 17:10 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise with great pleasure to speak on the MPI as proposed by Senator Smith, because this budget is truly a fabrication—a papier-mache collection of lies and mistruths. The Labor Party, the now government, went to the last election with a whole series of commitments and promises which they have, one by one, broken, whether it be the Rockhampton ring road funding, the capital of Israel or the funding for various projects where they led Australians on and made the commitment that they would particularly support regional Australia. This budget actually has more income than the last budget. It's up by $50 billion, thanks to commodity prices. But what has the government done with that increased income? Well, they've spent it. They've spent it. So spending is up from $628 billion to $651 billion. And that's not talking about the balance sheet items: the $20 billion for the power grid expenditure, $15 billion for reconstruction funding and another $10 billion. This budget is based on inflation increasing, effectively, to 7.75 per cent by the end of this year, but the government projects that by next year it will have fallen to 3.5 per cent. This seems to be a very bold statement to make. Real wages will continue going backwards. Wages will increase by 3.75 per cent, but that is not going to meet the inflation figures. People will lose jobs in 2023 according to Labor, based on the predicted unemployment rate of 4.5 per cent. That's 140,000 people out of work. I think this is a budget that is misleading in the extreme. What has happened is that money has been ripped out of productive projects—projects that you would invest in if you were building a nation and if you were looking to the future. What this is is a Robin Hood budget that steals jobs from the future, but I just don't know who they're giving them to. Families will be $2,000 worse off under Labor by Christmas. We already pay more in the regions, but this is going to increase. We pay more for fuel, for groceries, for insurance, for electricity and for airfares. To Labor's eternal shame, they looked Australians in the eye, they begged for their votes and promised, in exchange for them, a reduction of electricity prices by $275 per year. Now, Minister Gallagher has told us that that $275 reduction is in the budget. She said that today in question time, that it's in the budget. Senator Gallagher ING Don't verbal me; read the Hansard! Senator McDONALD 123072 I look forward to having that explained further to me. Labor is telling regional people and businesses here that a war 12,000 kilometres away is why they have to break a key election promise made 97 times. Regional people have a nose for political spin, and these excuses stink. Power prices are going up by more than 50 per cent, gas prices are going up by more than 40 per cent, taxes up, employment up, interest rates up and inflation up. But there's one thing that's not going up: under Labor, real wages are not going up. Labor wants to cut Australia's methane emissions, but this will be impossible if they continue with these excuses and lies. On the upside, at least our meat herds won't need culling; we'll just need Labor to stop talking! The regions have smaller populations— Senator Gallagher ING A decade of insecure wages! Senator McDONALD 123072 I'm wondering if those opposite would like the opportunity to speak, because they're certainly speaking a lot now. No? Thank you. The regions have smaller populations; businesses have static customer numbers, and an increase in costs will push them to the wall. A 50 per cent increase on power prices will result in business closures, jobs losses and increasingly difficult circumstances, thanks to the headlong rush to emissions reductions without a plan to genuinely transition the economy. Local butchers and pubs will have to charge people more and put off staff. Why do regions matter? Well, for Labor, a small town is just a photo opportunity. But it is so much more for the people, businesses and councils that live and operate there. 17:15 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania That contribution from Senator McDonald felt like we were in some sort of twilight zone. She talked about interest rate rises, cost-of-living rises and real wage increases, when, after 10 years of coalition government, the whole deliberate design feature of their budget was to keep wages low. That contribution was extraordinary. It completely ignored the actual facts of a decade of wasted opportunities and wrong priorities that the coalition government left us. And let's not forget: they did leave us with a trillion dollars' worth of debt without much to show for it. I have to say that I was so proud to be in the other place last night to hear our Treasurer deliver the 2022-23 budget speech. For the first time in 10 years a Labor budget was presented to the people of this country—a budget which is responsible, right for the times and ready for the future. Making good decisions now is critical to making sure no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. Much of what we presented last night was motivated by the cost-of-living pressures faced by Australians around the country that were brought about by the lingering impacts of the pandemic, by the war in Ukraine and by natural disasters at home that have led to pressures on supply chains and prices. Budgets, at their best, bring together the global and the local. This budget delivers for all Australians, helping them manage the cost-of-living pressures and plans for the future with our five-point cost-of-living plan: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, expanding paid parental leave to six months, more affordable housing and getting wages moving again. Our plan for cheaper child care will support families and deliver an economic dividend. The $4.5 billion plan will cut the cost of early education and care for around 1.26 million Australian families, easing the cost-of-living pressures, giving children access to critical early education and giving parents the opportunity to work and earn more if they want to. And we're making medicines cheaper for Australian households. For the first time in the PBS's 75-year history, the maximum cost of general scripts under the PBS will fall. We are delivering a $531 million investment to expand the paid parental leave system up to 26 weeks by July 2026. This is the biggest boost to Australia's paid parental leave scheme since it was created by whom? It was the former Labor government in 2011, because the other side—the coalition government—don't create those programs that make significant, real change in people's lives. The extension will support parents to spend more time with their children and share caring responsibilities more equally. We will also deliver 40,000 new social and affordable houses, including 30,000 from the Housing Australia Future Fund and an additional 10,000 dwellings under the new National Housing Accord. And we will introduce measures to get wages moving again by ensuring a safer, fairer and more secure workplace. On top of the five-point plan for the cost of living, this Labor budget builds a stronger, more resilient and more modern economy with investment in so many vital areas. Infrastructure is critical to building the nation, which we all want, and the Albanese government's investment in infrastructure will deliver the best outcome for the Australian people now and into the future. The budget takes an important first step in ensuring that the Commonwealth's infrastructure spending is responsible, affordable and sustainable. We are delivering on our election promises, which take the total investment in transport infrastructure in every state and territory in this budget to $55 billion over the forward estimates for new and existing projects. 17:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania In the words of the Treasurer from last night, this budget is 'solid, steady and sensible'. I think it's probably a fair yarn to say it's in that 'solid and steady' territory. There's not a lot that's new here—it's not particularly bold or visionary—but I do take umbrage with the word 'sensible'. I don't think it's sensible to be spending $240 billion on tax cuts that are mostly going to benefit the wealthy in this country. Nor do I think it's sensible in a time of climate emergency to be spending $40 billion-plus on fossil fuel subsidies, including billions of dollars in direct corporate welfare from the taxpayer to facilitate fossil fuel projects. To put that in perspective, compare that $40 billion to the $97 million contribution over four years to the Great Barrier Reef in this budget. I support money going to the Great Barrier Reef. It's not going to fix the problem. Only acting on emissions is going to fix the problem—no more new oil, gas and coal—but I do support that money going to the Barrier Reef. The Barrier Reef is, clearly, a World Heritage listed international gem. It contributes $6.4 billion annually to this country's GDP and it employs 64,000 people, so it is very important that we try to do whatever we can to help the Great Barrier Reef. But I want to raise today that there's no money in this budget for the Great Barrier Reef's southern sister, the Great Southern Reef, which spans from New South Wales down through Victoria and Tasmania and across to South Australia. This system of temperate reefs contributes nearly $10 billion annually—nearly double what the Great Barrier Reef contributes to our economy. Of course, these are absolutely critical ecosystems, so it's disappointing that there's nothing in here for the Great Southern Reef. Look at the money that's going to the Great Barrier Reef; for example, the government has spent $1.6 billion in the last five years. What have they spent on the Great Southern Reef? Only around $30 million. If you look at one of the programs on the Great Barrier Reef, hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years have gone to tackling the crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak, but only $4 million over 20 years has gone to tackling Centrostephanus, the long-spined sea urchin that is creating barrens in our oceans and devastating commercial fisheries, ecosystems and local communities. There's a lot the government has to do to fund research and adaption measures down in the Great Southern Reef. There are amazing people down there. You're going to be hearing a lot more from the Greens on this in the months to come, and we're looking forward to getting some budget outcomes in the next few years as— (Time expired) 17:23 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The Treasurer had his big night last night. If you think we're disappointed by this budget, you can't imagine the disappointment the Australian people and, indeed, those in my home state of Western Australia must be feeling. All this budget told those in Western Australia is that there will be much more financial hurt and pain for their household budgets. Be in no doubt: we are in a cost-of-living crisis. Things are going to get a lot worse before they're going to get better. The cost of living is going up. Power prices are going up. Gas prices are going up. Taxes are going up. Western Australians will have to spend more in their budgets just to be able to make ends meet. One reliable way of putting downward pressure on inflation is to put a limit on spending, but this budget contains measures that are actually going to put upward pressure on inflation. Let me give you an example. We've got $4.5 billion in here for so-called cheaper child care. That sounds noble, but we know, by this government's own admission, that this policy will not add a single childcare place. Worse still, it's likely to drive up the cost of child care. The increased subsidy will be swallowed up and will have further inflationary impacts. On the issue of no extra places, can someone from the Labor Party please explain to someone that's living in a childcare desert how an increased subsidy is going to help their costs of living if they can't actually access a childcare place in the first place? Despite ruling it out before the election, what we've seen is that the retiree tax is back. Labor's sneaky new tax will slug people who invest their own savings in superannuation, people who have worked hard and saved for a better retirement. Labor will now hit retirees and investors with a new $555 million tax, depriving investors of franking credits which they had previously relied on. This government has been in power for just five months. In that time, we've seen interest rates rise for five consecutive months. That's an increase of 2.25 per cent in five months, the most rapid increase in nearly three decades. Inflation is out of control. Before the last election, the then opposition leader repeatedly told Australians that Labor would cut power prices for families and small businesses by $275. Despite the Treasurer telling the National Press Club today that it was in the budget, Labor have not included it. It's a broken promise. When Australians think that it couldn't get much worse under this government, now this government turns around and slashes funding for rural and regional Australia with the abolition of the coalition's Building Better Regions Fund, the BBRF. This is a great program which supported Australians living in non-metropolitan regions. It highlights that this government is completely city-centric. It's very clear that this budget is all about helping the re-election campaign of the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews. In the electorate of O'Connor in Western Australia, there were 20 BBRF round 6 applications, two of which were from the Shire of Katanning to facilitate an early childhood hub and one of which was from the Shire of Laverton to facilitate an upgrade of the airport at Laverton. These are the kinds of important projects that are needed by these local communities, which will now miss out because of Labor's poor treatment of regional Western Australia. Last night's budget was a missed opportunity. It further underlined that this government is very good at talking but slow on taking responsibility and slow on bringing forward a plan to make life better for those in Western Australia. They're not providing for our communities. There is real pain in this budget. Have no doubt about that. Western Australian families know this year's Christmas will be very different to previous years. Instead, this government is too busy rewriting history books and blaming everyone else for the job that they have been elected to do. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The time for consideration of the MPI has expired. (Quorum formed) DOCUMENTS 88 DOCUMENTS Consideration 88 COMMITTEES 88 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 88 Delegated Legislation Monitor 88 17:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present the Delegated legislation monitorNo. 7 2022 together with ministerial correspondence relating to the report. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to. Public Works Joint Committee 88 17:33 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing on Public Works, I present the committee's fourth report of 2022. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 88 17:33 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present the Scrutiny digest No. 6 of 2022 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move: That the Senate to take note of the report. Question agreed to. As chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 6 of 2022. The digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced to the parliament. Each bill is assessed against the committee's technical scrutiny principles as set out in standing order 24. These principles focus on the effect of proposed legislation on parliamentary scrutiny and individual rights, liberties and obligations. Importantly, the committee has a strong and longstanding commitment to non- partisanship, and accordingly the digest does not consider the policy merits of bills. Scrutiny digest No. 6 of 2022 reports on the committee's consideration of 16 bills which were introduced into the parliament during the previous sitting week as well as amendments introduced in relation to four bills. It also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to eight bills. The committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to eight bills, including two private senators' and members' bills. I particularly wish to highlight the committee's comments in relation to two recently introduced bills. The first is the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022. Among other things, the bill seeks to amend the Biosecurity Act to confer three new instrument-making powers on the agriculture minister which mirror existing powers that are available to the health minister in relation to human biosecurity risks. Legislative instruments made under each of these new powers will be exempt from disallowance. Scrutiny principle (v) requires the committee to report in respect of bills which insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. As disallowance is the primary means by which the parliament exercises control over its delegated legislative power, the committee will have scrutiny concerns in relation to any bill that seeks to exempt delegated legislation from disallowance without appropriate justification. The committee has longstanding scrutiny concerns regarding provisions in the Biosecurity Act which allow delegated legislation to be exempted from parliamentary disallowance. I note that these concerns are shared by the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. In 2021 and 2022, the committee conducted a review of exemption from disallowance provisions within the Biosecurity Act and recommended that, from a scrutiny perspective, the Biosecurity Act should be amended to provide that all instruments made under the act—it's worth repeating: all instruments made under the act—are subject to disallowance. Rather than responding to those recommendations, this bill would introduce three new exemptions from disallowance provisions. Of particular concern is that these new exempt instruments may deal with significant matters which may impact upon an individual's personal rights and liberties, such as determining requirements for individuals entering Australian territory at a prescribed point of entry. In June 2021, the Senate resolved that all delegated legislation should be subject to disallowance unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying an exemption. The Senate also resolved that any claim that circumstances justify such an exemption will be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with the expectation that the claim would only be justified in rare cases. The committee does not consider that the justification provided in the explanatory memorandum to this bill adequately addressed the committee's scrutiny concerns. The committee has therefore requested the minister's advice as to whether the bill can be amended to provide that these new instrument-making powers are subject to disallowance to ensure they receive appropriate parliamentary oversight. The committee has also written to the ministers administering the Biosecurity Act to request that they move amendments to provide that all instruments made under the act are subject to disallowance. In this digest, the committee also considered the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. As senators know, these bills have been referred to the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation for inquiry and report by 10 November. The committee makes six recommendations that more information be included in the explanatory memorandum and a further nine recommendations that consideration be given to amending specific provisions. The committee encourages the Attorney-General, the select committee and all parliamentarians to consider these recommendations in detail. The committee's concerns relate to possible impacts on an individual's rights and liberties and to provisions which provide broad administrative powers or exclude judicial review. Under scrutiny principle (i) the committee will have scrutiny concerns in relation to any bill that introduces provisions that may trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The measures in these bills would provide the commissioner with a range of investigative and reporting powers which may limit an individual's personal rights or liberties, particularly in relation to longstanding common law rights relating to privacy, self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. The bill sets out a number of offence provisions which the committee considers would require further justification. In addition, the bill also provides for the broad delegation of administrative powers and functions. Generally, the committee prefers to see a limit set either on the scope of powers that might be delegated or on the categories of people to whom those powers might be delegated. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended to provide that powers and functions may only be amended to persons who have the appropriate qualifications, training or experience. Importantly, as I've already noted, the committee's concern relate to matters of technical scrutiny and not to matters of policy. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis contained in the digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 6 of 2022 to the Senate. Question agreed. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 89 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Regional Budget Statement 89 17:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government I table the Regional Budget Statement. COMMITTEES 90 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Cost of Living Select Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 90 Membership 90 17:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave: I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red as follows: Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Cost of Living — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Babet Economics Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade — Joint Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Faruqi Appointed—Senator Steele-John Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation — Joint Select Commi ttee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Babet Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Lambie and Tyrrell Question agreed to. BILLS 91 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 91

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 91 17:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately. Question agreed to. In Committee 91 17:42 The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T The committee is considering message No. 59 from the House of Representatives, relating to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. 17:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. (Quorum formed) 17:44 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to make a few short points about the bill and to note that the Greens, who supported these amendments when we were considering the bill previously, won't be insisting on our amendments. As we know, the underlying component of this bill is to extend the availability of the Commonwealth seniors healthcare card. It has cross-party support. Everybody agrees to it. The amendments to this bill that were moved when we last considered it included key provisions relating to the work bonus for age pensioners. I want to put on the record that, when there are good amendments from the opposition, we Greens are open to supporting those amendments where they improve the bill. In this case, we thought that they would improve the bill. We thank the opposition for putting forward an amendment to this bill that would have provided greater support to age pensioners, which is why we voted in support of those amendments. However, I recognise and thank the government for having introduced a workforce incentive bill in the other place since we last considered this bill. The provisions of that bill are currently being considered by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. We are going to be listening very closely to stakeholder views on that bill that we hear through the inquiry. In relation to stakeholders who have engaged on this issue, I want to thank National Seniors Australia, particularly, for their advocacy on this issue of providing greater support to age pensioners and allowing them to earn more before their pension is reduced. More broadly, I want to reiterate a point of made a number of times, particularly last night and today. We support changes that make it easier to access income support and to make income support more generous. We think that it's appalling that the government hasn't chosen to raise the rate of JobSeeker, because poverty is a political choice. It was a choice that the Liberal government made for a decade and is a choice that Labor is now making. So for everyone who is struggling to survive on an income support payment, whether it be on JobSeeker or the age pension, we hear you and we're going to keep on fighting and advocating for you. Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Senator Rice, I need to interrupt you. There's too much chitchat to my side. I need to ask senators to keep it down so that I can hear. Please continue. Senator RICE 155410 However, given that we have the workforce incentive bill, which is now in the other place and largely overlaps with the measures introduced as amendments to this bill, the Commonwealth seniors healthcare bill, we think it is appropriate that we do not insist on our amendments. 17:47 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The opposition will be insisting on the Senate's amendments. We have heard today—indeed, from Greens senators themselves—that the priority for this budget, the priority in the hearts and minds of Australian families, is the cost of living. Today we could insist on these amendments and send back to the House of Representatives an immediate remedy to some of the cost-of-living pressures that pensioners and veterans are experiencing in our community. Nothing demonstrates more than this the tardiness of the government is in acting on some of its own initiatives that would go to the heart of addressing labour shortages in many of our communities and of providing cost-of-living relief for pensioners and veterans. Senator Rice is absolutely right. The government does have a bill in the House of Representatives at the moment. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on the last sitting day, 28 September, and it has not progressed. The government owes pensioners and veterans in our country an apology for not doing more on these sitting days in this budget week to help deal with labour shortage issues in our country, which would put downward pressure on inflation—let's remember that. Anything that can be done to ease Labor shortages in this country will put downward pressure on inflation, and Labor is ignoring an opportunity to do that now, to do that tonight. In the process, age pensioners and veterans are going to have to continue to endure cost-of-living pressures, with limited means to correct that for themselves. This is outrageous. This is a powerful demonstration that the priorities of Australian families—with pensioners, with veterans—are not the priorities of this government. It is disappointing that on this occasion the Greens aren't able to support us. But, to be fair to Senator Rice and to other Greens, we were very grateful for the support you were able to give to the coalition when it moved the amendments on that sitting day in the last sitting week, because it shone a very important light on this issue. So, while we have a point of disagreement today on this matter of whether we insist on the amendments, when we were in this Senate chamber on that afternoon of 28 September, guess who was caught asleep at the wheel? It was the government. You would think that, just six months into the job of being the new government, they would be alert, they would be attentive, they would be paying attention to what was going on and what was in the minds of pensioners and veterans in this country and that they would be offering up solutions, joining in some bipartisanship—joining in some tripartisanship, if I might add—and agreeing to those amendments, allowing them to go to the House of Representatives and providing an answer for age pensioners and for veterans. This is a sad, sorry day for the new government. In the government's own budget, delivered last night, is exactly this initiative. So, they're deciding to wait. They are going to make people wait—not one day, not two days; they are going to make people wait and wait and wait. This afternoon, in previous conversations, we heard almost unanimous views in this Senate chamber, minus the government, that cost-of-living pressures are real and that the budget did not provide a solution. And now, at this time of the early evening, we've got a real, immediate opportunity to say to pensioners, to say to veterans and to say to the business community—not just in our cities, not just in our regional towns but also in our smaller communities across this country—that we know the pressures about labour shortages are real, we know that you need some answers, and here is some step towards providing those answers and providing those solutions. But no: the Labor Party has decided that it will come in here and make an attempt to not insist on these amendments. Wow. I just wonder how the Australian community will react to the realisation that at this particular point of this day we had an answer for age pensioners and for veterans and for small to medium business owners, and Labor squibbed it. This will come back to haunt the government. As disappointed as we are, we have no argument with the Australian Greens. You understand the issues. You supported the amendments. You've now had a different attitude, given that a matter is now before a Senate committee. But there is no excuse, there is no apology that can be provided to the Labor government for not making the most of this immediate opportunity. The CHAIR: The question before the committee is that the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.    

The committee divided. [17:58]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Askew, W. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Resolution reported; report adopted.

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022 93

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022

First Reading 93 18:02 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 93 18:03 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. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (MORE COMPETITION, BETTER PRICES) BILL 2022 SECOND READING SPEECH The Bill will deliver on the Government's election commitments to help ease the cost of living by increasing penalties for breaches of competition and consumer laws, and to provide greater protections for small businesses from unfair contract terms. Schedule 1 to the Bill will increase the maximum penalty for anti-competitive behaviour under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) as well as breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)to ensure the price of misconduct is high enough to deter unfair activity, and to ensure consumers retain a robust level of protection. In 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that the average and maximum competition penalties in Australia are substantially lower than those in comparable international jurisdictions. As a result, there is a risk that a breach of the existing competition law could be seen as an acceptable cost of doing business by some large firms. The amendments will increase the severity of Australia's penalty regime to be more comparable with international jurisdictions. As a result of this bill, we expect that in some cases, courts will impose higher penalties for wrongdoing. We want courts to be able to ask themselves: "will this penalty deter lawbreaking by this company and others like it?". By strengthening penalties, Australia will be promoting competition and better corporate behaviour. Greater competition means better prices and more choice for Australian households. No business that complies with the law will face any additional compliance burden as a result of this increase in penalties. Schedule 2 to the Bill strengthens the existing protections against unfair contract terms in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act). The reforms will better protect consumers and small businesses from unfair terms, by reducing their prevalence in standard form contracts. This will help to improve consumer and small business confidence when entering into standard form contracts. Consumers and small businesses often lack the resources and bargaining power to effectively review and negotiate terms in standard form contracts they are offered by a larger party. The existing unfair contract terms protections in the ACL and the ASIC Act provide that where a court finds a term is unfair, the term is void. This approach has not provided sufficient deterrence against the use of unfair terms, which remain prevalent in standard form contracts. The amendments introduce civil penalty provisions prohibiting the use of, and reliance on, unfair terms in standard form contracts. This will enable a regulator to seek a civil penalty from a court. The existing definition of an unfair term remains unchanged. The Government's expectation is that regulators will continue to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to enforcing the unfair contract terms protections, including affording businesses an opportunity to respond to allegations of unfair terms before commencing any legal proceedings. The Bill includes a requirement to review the reforms 2 years after commencement, and the Government will also welcome feedback from stakeholders ahead of this review. Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was previously notified in relation to the unfair contract terms amendments as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 94

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022

In Committee 94 18:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland When we hit the hard marker, Senator Cash had just asked a couple of questions. I've got some answers to those. I'd also like to clarify some evidence I provided earlier, now that we've had an opportunity to consider some of those matters further. To begin with, I wish to clarify one of the things I said earlier regarding an employer's ability to recoup any family and domestic violence leave paid where it becomes apparent the employee was a perpetrator and was not entitled to paid family and domestic violence leave. As I stated, employers would be able to recover these payments. However, as for other entitlements under the Fair Work Act, recovery would be for a debt owed to the employer. This is because a payment will have been made that the employee was not entitled to. So, in that situation, the employer's right to recover would be similar to other overpayments of entitlements under the act, such as for allowances, salary errors and so forth. No provisions are required in the Fair Work Act to enable this. I also wish to clarify that the regulator for Fair Work is the Fair Work Ombudsman, and civil penalties will ultimately be decided by a court. I misspoke in my answer regarding penalties for pay contraventions and referred to the Fair Work Commission; it will be the Fair Work Ombudsman. Also, Senator Cash, earlier today, asked this question—this is essentially what I think the question was: if an employer were to call a casual employee asking what days they are available for work but does not specify the times the employee would be offered work, would the casual employee be entitled to paid family and domestic violence leave and how would the rate of payment for paid family and domestic violence leave be calculated in these circumstances? The advice I've received is that, in those circumstances, the casual employee has not been rostered to work and has neither been offered nor accepted a shift, and therefore the entitlement to paid leave would not arise in those circumstances. The amount of pay they would be entitled to would therefore be nil. However, the casual employee would be able to take family and domestic violence leave without pay if they wished to do so. If the employer is simply testing the employee's potential availability to work, this would not be regarded as rostered hours and the employee would not be entitled to payment for the leave. If a casual employee needs to take time off to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence on a day they have not been rostered for work, the workplace right to take the leave and be absent from work to deal with the impact of domestic violence can still be accessed but the employer would not be required to pay the employee for the unrostered hours. The term 'rostered hours' is intended to take its ordinary meaning. This acknowledges that businesses have a wide range of rostering systems according to their usual practices and human resource capabilities. Most commonly, it will be a situation where the employer makes available a list or plan of shifts to be undertaken by an employee. Section 106BA(2) further clarifies that, without limiting the ordinary meaning of 'rostered hours': … an employee is taken to have been rostered to work hours in a period if the employee has accepted an offer by the employer of work for those hours. Offer and acceptance, as Senator Cash would be aware, is a long-established common law principle. There's no set form to establish offer and acceptance. The offer and/or acceptance can be in writing or via text message or verbally, such as over the phone or during a team meeting. Hopefully, that clarify some of the questions at least. 18:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I very much appreciate that additional clarification. I may have some further questions. I know Senator Waters will have some questions in relation to the bill generally. I will continue to ask away. This is in relation to the rate of pay. Again, small and family business understand the current leave arrangements in the Fair Work Act, in particular as they apply to casuals with a 25 per cent loading. This decision goes beyond what the Fair Work Commission itself had recommended in three aspects which we've been discussing. In relation to the rate of pay, these are questions that have been put to me by small and family businesses in particular—hence why I am seeking answers on Hansard, so they can refer to them. If I can go to what are referred to as, say, contingent entitlements. Contingent entitlements or work related allowances are payments above the base rate of pay. Normally leave is paid at the base rate of pay under the Fair Work Act. The government has determined that in this case it will be paid at the full rate of pay. In terms of the contingent entitlements or work related allowances, payments above the base rate of pay relate to the work that the employee is participating in. For example, they are made to employees who do certain tasks, have a particular skill they use at work, use their own tools at work, work in unpleasant or hazardous conditions, incur an expense for doing their job. Then you have a look at—and I know you'd be familiar with them—common allowances, for example hot work allowances, cool room allowances, confined spaces allowances and travel allowances. The issue has now arisen that because the government has moved towards what the ACTU had put forward, as opposed to what the Fair Work Commission has stated, there is genuine confusion amongst businesses about how they should actually calculate the rate of pay. I'm just going to take you through a few scenarios to try and seek guidance, on Hansard, for businesses to actually turn to, in the event that they are confronted with certain scenarios very similar to what we just went through. 18:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think I have an answer for you. In the interest of time, would you like me to provide the answer which may actually answer the various examples? 18:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I would. 18:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I know this is a bill that we all want to get through, that's all. The purpose of the paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement is to provide financial security for those experiencing family and domestic violence. The principle underlying it is that employees should not have to choose between doing things to ensure their own safety or going to work to make ends meet. The new family and domestic violence leave payment will be paid at the full rate of pay, which is the payment an employee would have received had they not taken a period of leave. This includes any loadings, penalty rates or allowances the employee would have ordinary received had they been working. For example, the casual loading, overtime allowance, higher duties allowance or a living away from home allowance are payable if they would have applied to the shift the employee would have worked had they not taken a period of leave. You gave a number of examples including working in hot or unpleasant conditions. Unless I'm told otherwise I am going to assume that if that was an allowance that a particular employee was paid in their ordinary work time then that would be payable as part of the leave payment, should someone seek to exercise that right. 18:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. That does provide further guidance for business. I do appreciate that. The issue is if it is not determined at the time the shift is offered what the employee will be doing on that particular day, but, for example, they would normally work in a confined space, they would normally work in a cold space or in a hot space, but it's not an everyday occurrence, so there is still an element of, 'We may have to decide on the day.' So the shift has been offered—subject to not actually knowing what they'll do on the day—and the employee has accepted the shift, so tick, tick. However, they then have to take the paid family and domestic violence leave. The very genuine issue raised by employers is: how do I know whether or not, in determining that rate of pay, I should factor in the allowance or not? The reason being that if I get it wrong I'm now subject to a penalty. 18:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland To supplement what I said previously, for irregular payments or amounts contingent upon certain events that may or may not have happened during the employee's rostered hours, an employer may not be liable to pay an employee those amounts. It's difficult to give an absolutely categorical assurance that applies to every single circumstance, but the principle is that if an allowance is ordinarily payable if an employee is at work then they would be paid at a rate that included those allowances. If an allowance is contingent upon certain events then, depending on the regularity and other factors, an employer may not be liable. One example I can give you is that an employee may not be entitled to be paid a travel allowance in relation to a period of paid family and domestic violence leave—if the calculation of the allowance was based on the distance travelled—where the distance that would have been travelled during the period the employee took the leave cannot be ascertained. Of course, as I mentioned when we were discussing this earlier today, it is certainly the department's intention to provide advice to small businesses about how to interpret these new laws. The usual option for small businesses to seek advice from the Fair Work Ombudsman to understand their legal requirements would be available for this as well. 18:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That actually was my next question in relation to the travel costs, Senator Watt, and you have now answered that, thank you. I know you'll be aware of this but, just to put it on the Hansard record, the Fair Work Commission in their decision about the rate of pay for paid family and domestic violence leave, FDV leave, have stated: However, we consider that it would be overly disruptive to the integrity of the safety net to establish, on an across-the-board basis, a new paid leave entitlement which operates on a radically different basis to the paid leave entitlements for which the NES currently provides. They also stated, in paragraph 863: We cannot identify a persuasive rationale for taking a different approach in the case of paid FDV leave only. Again just to get it on the record: given that that was the Fair Work Commission 's opinion—and I understand the ACTU had put forward another view and the government accepted that, and that's what we're looking at today—can I just again get the government's rationale? When we asked for it at the committee hearing, the department were not able to provide that assistance. And, to be fair to them, they are not the government. What was the government's rationale in actually going further than what the Fair Work Commission had stated, in particular given the concerns that the Fair Work Commission have put on the record—'overly disruptive to the integrity of the safety net'—in terms of this part of the bill? And how did the government determine it would depart from the advice and the decision of the Fair Work Commission? 18:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Really, it comes down to one of the underpinning policy objectives of this legislation, which is that employees should be able to take leave to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence without the loss of income that they would have otherwise experienced. That's really what it comes down to. I probably can't elaborate any further. 18:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia No; I understand what you're saying. It then goes to the next issue, which is, given the statements that you have just made, and the need for income continuity, one of the issues that has been raised now time and time again by business is: will the government now also seek to amend all needs-based entitlements to follow that model? And that obviously then goes to, effectively, upending the entire National Employment Standards and departing from what even the Fair Work Commission have stated would be overly disruptive, when you go down this path. 18:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to do that. 18:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Is that a full stop? Or is that a 'at this point in time'? 18:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have not seen anything that makes me think that there is any possibility that we would do that. 18:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We are obviously now also referring to the amendments that the minister has moved, the first amendment on a sheet PF105. In relation to this amendment, just to put the coalition position on the record, the new subclause would provide that on application by an employer, employee or employee organisation covered by a pre-commencement enterprise agreement that includes terms entitling an employees to paid family and domestic violence leave, the Fair Work Commission can consider whether the effect of the terms is detrimental when compared with the entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards. If the Fair Work Commission considers the effect of those terms is detrimental compared to the National Employment Standards, it may vary the terms of the agreement to make the agreement consistent with the National Employment Standards. The coalition, as we have advised the government, will support the amendment. It is a technical amendment to ensure that the Fair Work Commission is not in the language of the new subclause. It would be updated to clarify that they may consider the interaction between the agreement and the National Employment Standards, rather than making decisions about the agreement's effect as provided by the original subclause. In relation to the amendment moved by the minister on sheet RU110, this amendment will require employers to not provide information on an employee's pay slip that they have taken paid family and domestic violence leave. I understand the amendment deals with the concerns of victims who may be financially abused and could be put at risk if their perpetrator is watching their pay slips. Again, we have advised the government that the coalition will support this amendment. I think there are still some questions, and I do hope that they are worked through during the consultation period with small and family businesses in relation to the actual operation et cetera, how it will be administered for small and family businesses. But we do support this amendment, as it will address the concerns raised by both stakeholders in conversations with the coalition and certainly stakeholders who appeared at the committee hearing in August. Question agreed to. 18:22 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move amendments (1) to (37) on sheet 1608 revised together: (1) Title, page 1 (lines 2 and 3), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (2) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave", substitute "Emergency Leave". (3) Schedule 1, items 1 to 21, page 3 (line 4) to page 6 (line 4), omit the items, substitute: 1 Section 12 (definition of close relative ) Omit "subsection 106B(3)", substitute "subsection 105(3)". 2 Section 12 (definition of compassionate leave) Repeal the definition. 3 Section 12 Insert: emergency leave means emergency leave to which a national system employee is entitled under section 104. 4 Section 12 (definition of family and domestic violence ) Omit "subsection 106B(2)", substitute "subsection 105(2)". 5 Section 12 (definition of permissible occasion ) Omit "sections 102 and 104", substitute "section 102". 6 Section 12 ( unpaid family and domestic violence leave ) Repeal the definition. 7 Section 17 (note) Omit ", compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "and emergency leave". 8 Paragr aph 61(2)(e) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) personal/carer's leave and emergency leave (Division 7); 9 Paragraph 79(2)(b) Omit "compassionate leave", substitute "emergency leave". 10 Division 7 of Part 2-2 (heading) Omit ", compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "and emergency leave". 11 Section 98 Repeal the section, substitute: 98 Employee taken not to be paid personal/carer's leave at certain times Public holidays (1) If the period during which an employee takes paid personal/carer's leave includes a day or part-day that is a public holiday in the place where the employee is based for work purposes, the employee is taken not to be on paid personal/carer's leave on that public holiday. Period of emergency leave (2) If the period during which an employee takes paid personal/carer's leave includes a period of emergency leave, the employee is taken not to be on paid personal/carer's leave for the period of that emergency leave. 12 Subdivisions C and CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2 Repeal the Subdivisions, substitute: Subdivision CA — Emergency leave 104 Entitlement to emergency leave (1) An employee is entitled to 10 days of emergency leave in a 12 month period. (2) Emergency leave: (a) is available in full at the start of each 12 month period of the employee's employment; and (b) does not accumulate from year to year; and (c) is available in full to part-time and casual employees. (3) For the purpose of subsection (2), if an employee is employed by a particular employer: (a) as a casual employee; or (b) for a specific period of time, for a specific task or for the duration of a specified season; the start of the employee's employment is taken to be the start of the employee's first employment with that employer. (4) The employee may take emergency leave as: (a) a single continuous 10 day period; or (b) separate periods of one or more days each; or (c) any separate periods to which the employee and the employer agrees, including periods of less than one day. (5) To avoid doubt, this section does not prevent the employee and the employer agreeing that the employee may take paid or unpaid leave in addition to the entitlement in subsection (1) to deal with the impact of any of the circumstances specified in subsection 105(1). 105 Taking emergency leave (1) The employee may take emergency leave if: (a) the employee is experiencing family and domestic violence and: (i) the employee needs to do something to deal with the impact of the family and domestic violence; and (ii) it is impractical for the employee to do that thing outside the employee's work hours; or (b) a person who is a member of the employee's immediate family or a member of the employee's household contracts or develops a personal illness that poses a serious threat to that person's life and the leave is taken to spend time with that person; or (c) a person who is a member of the employee's immediate family or a member of the employee's household sustains a personal injury that poses a serious threat to that person's life and the leave is taken to spend time with that person; or (d) a person who is a member of the employee's immediate family or a member of the employee's household dies; or (e) a child is stillborn, where the child would have been a member of the employee's immediate family, or a member of the employee's household, if the child had been born alive; or (f) the employee, or the employee's spouse or de facto partner, has a miscarriage. Note 1: Examples of actions, by an employee who is experiencing family and domestic violence, that could be covered by subparagraph (a)(i) include arranging for the safety of the employee or a close relating (including relocation), attending court hearings, accessing police services, attending counselling and attending appointments with medical, financial or legal professionals. Note 2: The notice and evidence requirements of section 107 must be complied with. (2) Family and domestic violence is violent, threatening or other abusive behaviour by a close relative of an employee, a member of an employee's household, or a current or former intimate partner of an employee, that: (a) seeks to coerce or control the employee; and (b) causes the employee harm or to be fearful. (3) A close relative of the employee is a person who: (a) is a member of the employee's immediate family; or (b) is related to the employee according to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander kinship rules. Note: Immediate family is defined in section 12. (4) Emergency leave taken for the purpose specified in paragraph (1)(b) or (c) may be taken at any time while the illness or injury persists. Note: The notice and evidence requirements of section 107 must be complied with. (5) Paragraph (1)(f) does not apply: (a) if the miscarriage results in a stillborn child; or (b) to a former spouse, or former de facto partner, of the employee. Note: For the definition of a stillborn child, see subsection 77A(2). 106 Payment for emergency leave (1) If, in accordance with this Subdivision, an employee takes a period of emergency leave, the employer must pay the employee, in relation to that period: (a) for an employee other than a casual employee—at the employee's full rate of pay, worked out as if the employee had not taken the period of leave; or (b) for a casual employee—at the employee's full rate of pay, worked out as if the employee had worked the hours in the period for which the employee was rostered. (2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(b), an employee has taken to have been rostered to work hours in a period if the employee has accepted an offer by the employer of work for those hours. (3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not prevent a casual employee from taking a period of paid emergency leave that does not include hours for which the employee is rostered to work. However, the employer is not required to pay the employee in relation to such a period. 106A Confidentiality (1) Employers must take steps to ensure information concerning any notice or evidence an employee has given under section 107 of the employee taking leave under this Subdivision is treated confidentially, as far as it is reasonably practicable to do so. (2) Nothing in this Subdivision prevents an employer from disclosing information provided by an employee if the disclosure is required by an Australian law or is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the employee or another person. Note: Information covered by this section that is personal information may also be regulated under the Privacy Act 1988. 106B Operation of emergency leave and leave for victims of crime (1) This Subdivision does not exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory to the extent that it provides for leave for victims of crime. (2) If an employee who is entitled, under a law of a State or Territory, to leave for victims of crime is also entitled to leave under this Subdivision, that law applies in addition to this Subdivision. (3) A person who is a national system employee only because of section 30C or 30M is entitled to leave under this Subdivision only to the extent that the leave would not constitute leave for victims of crime. Note: Leave for victims of crime is a non-excluded matter under paragraph 27(2)(h). 13 Paragraphs 107(3)(c) and (d) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (c) if it is emergency leave—the leave is taken for a reason specified in subsection 105(1). 14 After subsection 107(3) Insert: (3A) To avoid doubt, an employee is not required under paragraph (3)(c) to give an employer evidence identifying which of the reasons specified in subsection 105(1) the leave is taken for. 15 Subsection 107(5) Omit "unpaid carer's leave or compassionate leave", substitute "unpaid carer's leave". (4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (lines 8 and 9), omit "Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave", substitute "Emergency Leave". (5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (lines 13 and 14), omit "Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave", substitute "Emergency Leave". (6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of pre-commencement enterprise agreement in clause 51. (7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (line 22), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (line 29) to page 8 (line 30), omit clause 53, substitute: 53 Regulations may provide for transitional matters The regulations may make provisions of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act. (9) Schedule 2, item 1, page 9 (lines 8 to 9), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (10) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 13), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (11) Schedule 2, item 3, page 9 (line 23), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (12) Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (line 26), omit "106D(1)", substitute "106B(1)". (13) Schedule 2, item 4, page 10 (line 3), omit "106D", substitute "106B". (14) Schedule 2, item 7, page 10 (line 16), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (15) Schedule 2, item 8, page 11 (lines 1 and 2), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (16) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 5 and 6), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (17) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (after line 15), after paragraph 757A(b), insert: and (c) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; (18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 16 and 17), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (19) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 18 and 20), omit the note, substitute: Note 1: The ILO Convention and the Recommendation could in 2022 be viewed on the ILO website (http://www.ilo.org). Note 2: The Covenant is in Australian Treaty Series 1976 No. 5 ([1976] ATS 5) and could in 2022 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). (20) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 21 and 22), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (21) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 3 and 4), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (22) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 10 to 16), omit "subsection 106D(3)" (wherever occurring), substitute "subsection 106B(3)". (23) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "subsection 106D(3)", substitute "subsection 106B(3)". (24) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 2), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (25) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 4), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (26) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (lines 12 and 13), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (27) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (lines 14 and 15), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (28) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (29) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 22), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (30) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (lines 23 to 30), omit section 757E, substitute: 757E State and Territory laws that are not excluded This Act is not intended to apply to the exclusion of laws of a State or Territory that provide employee entitlements in relation to: (a) family and domestic violence; or (b) other circumstances of a kind mentioned in subsection 105(1); to the extent that those laws (c) apply to non-national system employees; and (d) provide entitlements for those employees that are more beneficial that the entitlements provided under the extended emergency leave provisions. (31) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (lines 1 and 2), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (32) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (lines 6 and 7), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (33) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (line 14), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (34) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (lines 20 and 21), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (35) Schedule 2, item 9, page 15 (lines 4 and 5), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (36) Schedule 2, item 9, page 15 (lines 9 and 10), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". (37) Schedule 2, item 11, page 15 (line 18), omit "paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "emergency leave". 18:23 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania If you need help, you should be able to get help. That is a very basic principle, and it's one this bill seeks to sustain. I support this ambition. Many people have campaigned for a long time to get this bill to where it is today, and that is both commendable and impressive. You should be congratulated for the hard work to make today possible. But there are problems with this bill and there are problems that need fixing. They are fixable, but they are not being fixed. The biggest problem with this bill is the name of the entitlement it creates. It's called 'paid family and domestic violence leave'. You might think, if that's what you're going through, call it as such. But there are plenty of people who are going through what you or I would recognise as family and domestic violence, and not all of them know it because, if you love the person who's abusing you, you make excuses for it. You don't think of them as an abuser, because how could they be? How could someone who loves you do that to you? It's why you don't self-identify as having experienced domestic violence—because your partner loves you and nobody who loves you would do that to you. So you don't think of yourself as suffering from domestic violence. You had a blue. He lost his temper. You pushed him too hard. You make excuses. You minimise it. And all of that is understandable. I don't want to pass judgement on you for doing that. This bill would say: if that's where you're at, you don't get help, because the name of the leave is 'paid family and domestic violence leave', and you haven't experienced domestic violence, so it's not for you. In fact, in order to get it—if you need it—you have to come forward and say not only that what you experienced is domestic violence but that, by extension, the person who did it to you is a perpetrator of domestic violence. That's why the name matters. The only type of person who's eligible for paid family and domestic violence leave is the type of person who's experiencing domestic violence. If you don't think that's you, you rule yourself out. This could be fixed. I've got amendments that would fix it. Calling this 'emergency leave' would not require you to self-identify as having experienced domestic violence. You'd only need it to be an emergency—an unforeseen emergency at home—that would prevent you from coming to work that day. Nobody experiencing domestic violence would miss out. Nobody experiencing domestic violence would be worse off. This would be a change that would serve only to increase the chance that people who need help get help. That's the principle this bill is supported to advance. This makes it more universal, and that's a good thing. It should be supported, so I foreshadow that my amendment would do just that. But there are benefits beyond simply whether a person self-identifies as being a victim of domestic violence. If you're sick at work and you want to take sick leave, you've got to tell someone at work you're sick. If you're experiencing domestic violence at home and you want to take domestic violence leave, you've got to tell someone at work you're experiencing domestic violence. Some people aren't going to see that as a barrier. Often they're in big cities, working in big companies with well-defined rules around confidentiality. They wouldn't know their HR manager from a bar of soap. Some people in small towns and small businesses aren't in the same boat. Not everybody wants their whole workplace to know what has happened to them. If your boss knows your partner, then telling your boss about what's going on at home is a particularly big deal because you're not just saying what you're going through but you are, de facto, naming who's putting you through it. That is a big step for someone to decide to take. You have no right to say to a person that they should have to meet a standard we impose on them before they're entitled to safety and protection—absolutely none. You should be entitled to privacy. You should be entitled to safety. No lawmaker should make you choose between them. That's us. We shouldn't be doing what we're doing. When you ask for domestic violence leave, even in asking the question, you're explaining why you need it, and it's absolutely none of your employer's business why you need safety in that moment. It's an emergency; get out of the way. When you ask for emergency leave, on the other hand, you're saying you're experiencing an emergency, one that prevents you from attending your work for a period of time. Your boss might ask for evidence, but all you need is evidence you're experiencing an emergency. That would be an improvement, but it wouldn't take long for businesses to realise that anybody who's requesting emergency leave is requesting what used to be called domestic violence leave. It's a rose by any other name. So the second bit of what I'm proposing is to combine domestic violence leave with compassionate leave. That's the leave you take when there has been a death in the family. Combining the two would mean you'd be eligible so long as there's a family emergency. The grounds for eligibility would be the same: if you're eligible for what's currently called 'compassionate leave', you're eligible for emergency leave. If you're eligible for what's proposed to be called 'paid domestic violence leave', you're eligible for emergency leave. There's no change there. This is a change that makes a good thing available to more people. It does not cost a dollar more to implement. It does not restrict access to a single person. It expands access and makes it easier to access. It is a good thing. Yet I understand that this amendment will not be supported. For the life of me, I do not understand why. Don't get me wrong; I've heard the arguments. They make no sense. I've heard that this is complex. It's not exactly complex. Changing the name of an entitlement is about the easiest change you can make when you're dealing with workplace laws. You just change what you call something. We changed Newstart to JobSeeker, and we all just moved on. We change the names of public service departments, and nobody blinks. Those changes don't do anything. This change does something. Isn't that worth doing? If it's worth the effort to rebadge a building, isn't it worth the effort to save more lives? Maybe the complexity is about the implementation, rather than the name itself. Maybe it's about how it operates. But this simply combines two existing entitlements; if anything, it makes them simpler to administer: employers have fewer entitlements to take care of. This doesn't change eligibility for those two entitlements, it just makes them simpler. That's the opposite of complexity. I have heard from the Greens how important it is to bring domestic violence out of the shadows and into the spotlight so that we can reduce the stigma attached to it. I think we should too; I think we should reduce the stigma. I think we should make it as ordinary to claim as any other entitlement. But whose responsibility is it to do that? That's where I disagree with the Greens, because I do not believe that the responsibility for dealing with the stigma around domestic and family violence should fall on the people experiencing the violence in real time while they're trying to keep themselves alive. They should not be made to serve as examples for others, they should be protected. That is the overwhelming obligation we have to them and that is what we should be focused on. We should make it the job of survivors to survive, not to be ambassadors. A problem that's baked into the design of this bill is making this a workplace entitlement made available through the employer and not through the government. If this were delivered through the government it would help more people. Confidentiality would be guaranteed, privacy would be protected and it would extend not just to people who are employed but go to people who aren't in work as well. It would not push costs for administering this onto businesses; by making this the responsibility of businesses you're making support for domestic violence leave conditional on market forces. Think about this: in a recession, people lose jobs, businesses go bankrupt and families struggle financially. In a recession, domestic violence increases. That was the finding of the National Library of Medicine's 10-year review of the evidence coming out of the United States. It found that unemployment and economic hardship at the household level are positively related to abusive behaviour. So when people lose their jobs, when they're struggling to make ends meet and when domestic violence rates climb, that's when we cut them off from domestic violence leave—that's the situation we're about to create. If this were run by the government you would be protected, even when you lose your job—in good times and in bad you'd be protected. I understand that I have support for one amendment, which addresses an issue where survivors could be outed by their employer in situations where they work with their abuser. The amendment, which I'll foreshadow now, makes it clear that employers can't use the information provided by an employee in the course of seeking family and domestic violence leave to take action against another employee—not without consent. Your privacy should be yours, and it's not up to others to give it away on your behalf. It's a fix that goes a little bit of the way to protecting privacy, but we could have gone much further. Ultimately, I'm disappointed that this bill will proceed in the way it's currently written. That's not because I think it's a bad bill, it's just a missed opportunity to turn it into a great bill. Everything that's good about it makes it all the more painful to see it get through in a form that limits how valuable it can be. Paid family and domestic violence leave will save lives, but doing it in a way that asks people to choose between their privacy and their safety means we're going to save fewer lives. More people will suffer—people we could have helped. To you, I'm sorry, but we'll keep fighting. 18:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I will just make a brief contribution to explain the Greens' position on this amendment. Throughout the inquiry into this bill we heard from experts and advocates for victim-survivors about the importance of workplace cultures where employees felt safe to disclose abuse. Dedicated family and domestic violence leave is an important component of building that workplace culture and the associated support. In our view, calling it 'emergency leave' just reinforces the idea that family and domestic violence is something that should be hidden. We've continued to push for measures to remove barriers to victim-survivors accessing leave and to protect the confidentiality of any information provided. I'm pleased that earlier in the committee stage of this bill, we passed an amendment which ensures that the payslip need not record the fact that it is family and domestic violence leave that is the source of the payment. We strongly support that amendment because, of course, any such mention of that could be a red flag to a perpetrator, who may well be having a look at their partner's or former partner's payslip. So in our minds that notion of privacy and protection has been upheld with that amendment, which we supported. But we still need that cultural change. If we don't start calling what we are facing what it is, a sheer epidemic of violence against women in this country, we won't change anything. That's why we strongly support continuing to call this leave family and domestic violence leave. It's important to show employees that employers will recognise the significance of family and domestic violence and that they understand its complex impact, and that support is available. Without societywide efforts to break down the stigma of disclosing abuse, too many people will remain in dangerous situations. So, whilst we have some sympathy for the sentiments, for the reasons I've just outlined we won't be supporting this particular amendment. 18:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I just want to go into this a little bit further, if I can, and make sure this is quite clear. The reason the military—and I take it from this that this is where there's the emergency leave, so I'm going to explain all this. Emergency leave is there so you don't need to explain your circumstances. Emergency leave leaves it open for other things. It's not just about domestic violence. There are other things going on in people's lives—whether they're losing someone, whether there is a partner or someone in their family who is suffering serious illness that they do not want to speak to their employer about before they take this leave. Ours was simply to make it quite clear that, when you're in a rural and regional area—and we are so cliquey and so related to each other that I can assure you that, if I did have a partner, you could guarantee that, if I was working in a firm in that little rural and regional area, my partner would know that person, my boss, if I was working there. I am not very comfortable in telling my boss, who is probably good friends with my partner, what is going on in my home life. I'm just not comfortable with that, and I'm not sure anybody out there would be. I shouldn't have to explain to someone. I know you want awareness, but at what cost? You don't know everybody's situation, and I don't know why they have to explain their whole life and why they're running around under abuse. Explaining that to my boss is the last thing I would want to be doing. Give them a little more room here. It's great to say we want awareness out there and all that, but at what cost? I'm just being very, very careful, and I would like to make it very clear to employers that I shouldn't have to sit down and explain my story to them, if I am in a domestic violence situation where I have already been reduced to nothing, because they are going to ask. The least we can do is offer them cover. That's all this amendment was going to do. 18:37 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I'm conscious that we want to move through this quickly, so I'll keep my question as brief as I can. Minister, are you able to explain to us something that some stakeholders, and, obviously, victims survivors in particular, have raised? No doubt, many of us here have received emails on this issue of privacy and confidentiality. This goes into this particular amendment. I'll give you a cameo. That might help. If an employee claims domestic violence leave, it's recorded in the HR system. It's good that that amendment means that it won't necessarily need to appear on the payslip. But if it's recorded in the system and that employee moves on from that employment, would the privacy of the individual still be protected if that person moves on, applies for another job, and that new prospective employee goes back to that employer and asks the question: 'Has this person ever claimed domestic violence leave?' Would that be a breach of privacy? Would it be a breach of that person's situation if that was provided to that new employer—that information that that person had, at some point, claimed domestic violence leave? It would be good to have that recorded for Hansard. 18:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The advice I've received is that, in the situation you're talking about, it would be possible, of course, for a future employer to ask a previous employer whether someone had applied for or used domestic violence leave, just as it would be possible for a future employer to ask a previous employer about annual leave or sick leave, but it would be absolutely illegal for a previous employer to provide that information to a future employer. It's an existing provision under the law that future employers are not entitled to receive information from previous employers about any kinds of leave claims that have been made, and that would certainly apply here. That's correct. Yes. While I am on my feet, I will put the government's position on this amendment on the record. Just in case those following aren't entirely clear, this amendment, which has been moved by—I am not sure—Senator Lambie or Senator Tyrrell, seeks to combine family and domestic violence leave with compassionate leave and rename the entitlement as 'emergency leave'. I accept that the mover of this amendment has the very best of intentions in seeking to do so and there have been productive conversations with the shadow minister's office about this but, be that as it may, the government does not agree to this amendment. Compassionate leave, the existing category, is sought to be renamed as a special category of leave providing up to two days paid leave per occasion for full-time and part-time employees. Compassionate leave allows employees to spend time with a severely ill family member or allows them to deal with a family member's death. If this amendment were to pass it would significantly change the current compassionate leave settings and that could very easily result in a number of undesirable consequences. For example, women experiencing family and domestic violence who also need to take compassionate leave, either to spend time with severely ill relatives or due to a family member's death, would have to choose between escaping violence and grieving or caring for a severely ill family member, as compassionate leave would be no longer reserved for grieving purposes. Combining these forms of leave into a single leave balance may, in some cases, provide less paid leave than what is actually proposed in this bill. The proposed amendment makes significant policy changes to compassionate leave. It would increase the potential amount of compassionate leave that can be taken from two days per occasion to up to 10 days per year, extend paid compassionate leave to casuals and make compassionate leave payable at the full rate of pay instead of the base rate of pay. None of these changes have undergone proper and adequate consultation and, for that reason, the government does not consider it appropriate to support the amendment. What I will say, though, is that we have tried to pick up the intent of this amendment through the amendments that we have already passed relating to the changes to records on payslips. The government fully understands the importance of protecting personal privacy and acknowledges the concerns of the mover of the amendment regarding the importance of maintaining confidentiality for employees. The government have listened to a range of stakeholder concerns around payslips and that is why we made the amendments earlier that try to deal with the same problem via a different way, but we won't be supporting this amendment. 18:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If I could just make a few comments on behalf of the opposition on the amendment on sheet 1608moved by Senator Tyrrell on behalf of the Jacqui Lambie Network. The amendment, unfortunately, does not just change the name of the leave. What it actually would do is wrap in a new form of leave called 'emergency leave'; hence, the change of name to 'emergency leave'. That would expand what this bill is actually looking at, which is the paid family and domestic violence leave. It would, in fact, extend the leave to a range of other circumstances, including caring for an immediate family member with severe illness that is a threat to their life and the employee is caring for them, of caring for an immediate family member with a severe personal injury that is a their life and the employee is caring for them, or a child is stillborn where the child would have been the employee's immediate family or a member of employee's household if the child had been born alive, or the employee or employee's spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage. The coalition will not be supporting the amendment for reasons very similar to those provided by the government. We certainly appreciate the intent of the amendment. I think you have stood up and articulated that well. As we all know, sometimes, though, when you are seeking to move an amendment to legislation, while the amendment itself does look very simple on the face of it but, given we are dealing with the Fair Work Act, a very technical piece of legislation, it already has in place a framework for leave. We are looking at amending that framework in relation to leave to add in another entitlement to a different form of paid leave. In particular, the Fair Work Commission itself, in its most recent review, the four-yearly review of the award system, had undertaken an extensive consultation and inquiry into the question of whether or not the unpaid provision for family and domestic violence leave that is currently in the Fair Work Act should be extended to 10 days of paid leave. They said that it should be, they made their decision and the government obviously determined that it would then enshrine that in the National Employment Standards, going further than what the Fair Work Commission had said. But that is what this bill is dealing with. Your amendment actually takes it beyond that. To be fair to your amendment, if the government were to look at going down this path I think it is something that would need to be looked at in detail, in particular in relation to whether there are any unintended consequences and, if so, what they are and how the Senate deals with them. In particular, because of the nature of what is being looked at, it should be subject to consultation with the relevant stakeholders, in particular how this provision would actually operate within the Fair Work Act and particularly its potential impact on small and family business. So, I absolutely understand the intent, but it's the unintended consequences, and it goes further than the bill that we're actually debating here today. 18:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I do have another question. I just want to clear this up. How much does someone who's been under domestic violence, who's in that situation that I explained, have to tell their boss in order to get that domestic violence leave? Do they have to mention the words 'domestic violence' to get that leave? What do they have to tell their boss? How much information do they have to tell them or give them to get that far? 18:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The advice I've received is that if a person wanted to access that leave entitlement they would need to—sorry to use legal terminology—provide the level of evidence that a reasonable person would expect, if they're asked to provide that evidence. That's the technical explanation. But, in a sense, that's similar to a claim for sick leave or any other form of leave where an employee needs to at least disclose a reason for their request for leave. There's no requirement under the legislation to produce photographic or other evidence. And I would certainly hope that employers treat these requests with respect and that if an employee were to make a request and explain that they are experiencing family or domestic violence then an employer would agree to that request. But of course people would need to make that request, and it's implicit in that that they are saying that they have experienced domestic violence. 18:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania If an employer breaches the confidentiality of an employee with respect to domestic violence leave by going to police because of a sincerely held view that it is necessary to protect that employee but does so against the wishes of the employee, how will the employee recover their lost confidentiality? Is there anything in place for that? Or is there reprimanding from the Fair Work Commission? Are we in a grey area here? 18:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In this and similar situations, if an employer were to breach an employee's confidentiality in ways set out under the law then they would be subject to a civil penalty. 18:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania That also goes for police when you're reporting because you are sincerely concerned for the person's welfare. I would have thought that if you were sincerely concerned about sitting there and not saying anything and they were getting bashed—I would be feeling quite responsible by sitting on my butt and not doing anything more than offering, 'I can help you.' Where are the rights of the employer who can see that their employee is getting hurt? What is their duty of care here? 18:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Lambie, earlier in the debate—I don't think you were in the chamber at the time—we were talking about how this legislation interacts with mandatory reporting obligations. The bill does not place any reporting obligations on employers to report concerns around violence, but there are a range of reporting obligations that exist under state and territory laws and they are not prohibited by the bill. For instance, state and territory laws, as you'd be aware, often require workers to mandatorily report suspected abuse of children, and those laws would not be affected. There's an exemption to the confidentiality obligation that normally would apply to an employer or someone else in that situation if a disclosure is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of an employee or another person. If there are confidentiality obligations in place for an employer to not disclose personal information of an employee, if we're talking about a situation where the life, health or safety of an employee is in danger, those confidentiality obligations would effectively be lifted. I think a situation involving domestic and family violence would surely fall under that category. 18:51 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I would like to applaud the Jacqui Lambie Network senators, Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrrell, on the way that they consult with their community and bring the community's concerns and ideas into the Senate. We are certainly richer for it, and it's really important to talk these through. I hold similar concerns. On consulting with my community here in the ACT, speaking to experts and frontline workers, the overwhelming consensus is that it is important to call it family and domestic violence leave. Senator Lambie raises an important point that I'm keen to get clarification on from the government. Senator Watt, you talked about reasonable proof to be able to access this leave. Knowing how stretched our frontline domestic violence services are, I'm assuming that in most instances women will go to frontline services and speak to them, to get some sort of letter of reference or support or share some of the casework. Given how stressed they are, does this legislation come with a commitment to better funding of frontline services—not just better funding but longer-term funding? A lot of local organisations are surviving on 12-month or, at most, two-year funding cycles, which makes it very hard to keep a workforce in the current climate. 18:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I won't repeat the point about evidentiary requirement, because the issue you're raising is more about support for domestic violence services. Absolutely, my own dealings with domestic violence services in Queensland convince me that they are very short of resources and very stretched to do extremely stressful work. You're probably familiar with the fact that the government has just released, in partnership with states and territories, a new national action plan relating to domestic and family violence. I've forgotten the exact name of the action plan. That also committed governments, federal and state, to increase resourcing for those services. That is something we take very seriously and we're providing those resources through that plan. 18:54 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have one more question. I'm a little bit confused about if a person's working in different workplaces. How many days leave will a person be entitled to if they're casually employed by more than one employer? I can't quite get that clear. 18:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The advice I've got is that it would be 10 days per job and, therefore, 10 days per employer. 18:54 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania So, if you're working for three small businesses, that could be up to 30 days? I'm a little bit confused. 18:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I guess that is theoretically right, but, in the situation you're talking about, if a casual employee is working for three different employers, I'm going to take a punt that they might be working one day a week at one employer and two days a week at another, or part days. The person would only qualify for leave for the amount of time that they actually work. So, if they're working three half-days at three different employers, they'd qualify for 10 days at part-time pay levels. I don't think we're likely to see situations where people get to take three lots of 10 days at a full-time pay level. I know there are lots of people in this chamber who work far more than a full-time day's work, but we're not talking about people who work three full-time jobs who would qualify for three full-time levels of this form of leave. 18:56 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Do permanent part-time employees get 10 days per employer as well? 18:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, they would, but obviously at the part-time rate. Effectively, the idea is to provide leave for the amount of time that you actually work part-time hours. So, if I was working 20 hours a week and I accessed this form of leave, then I would be entitled to 10 days of leave at the rate that I'm being paid, being the part-time rate for 20 hours a week. You don't qualify for 40 hours a week or 38 hours a week of leave if you are only working 20 hours a week. Your entitlement is to be paid the amount that you're paid when you're actually at work. The TEMPORAR 217241 The question is that amendments (1) to (37) on sheet 1068 moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.      

The committee divided. [19:01]
The Temporary Chair—Senator McGrath)

 3 AYES Babet, R. Lambie, J. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. 41 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lines, S. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 19:05 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1641, Greens amendments (1) to (41) on sheet 1652, and Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1653, together: SHEET 1641 (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 24), after item 15, insert: 15A Paragraph 106B(1)(a) Omit "is experiencing", substitute "has experienced, or is experiencing,". 15B Paragraph 106B(1)(c) After "impractical", insert "or unsafe". (2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (lines 3 to 8), omit the note, substitute: Note 1: Examples of actions by an employee who has experienced, or is experiencing, family and domestic violence, that could be covered by paragraph (b) include (but are not limited to) arranging for the care or safety of the employee or a close relative (including relocation), attending court hearings, accessing police services, attending counselling and attending appointments with medical, financial or legal professionals or government services. SHEET 1652 (1) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "paid", insert "and unpaid". (2) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Paid", insert "and Unpaid". (3) Schedule 1, items 2 to 5, page 3 (lines 9 to 17), omit the items, substitute: 2 Section 12 (definition of unpaid family an d domestic violence leave ) Omit "section 106A", substitute "section 106F". 3 Section 17 (note) After "compassionate leave", insert ", paid family and domestic violence leave". 4 Paragraph 61(2)(e) After "compassionate leave", insert ", paid family and domestic violence leave". 5 Division 7 of Part 2-2 (heading) After "compassionate leave", insert ", paid family and domestic violence leave". (4) Schedule 1, item 13, page 4 (line 20), omit "entitlement in subsection (1)", substitute "entitlements in subsection (1) and subsection 106F(1)". (5) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 20, insert: 20A After Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2 Insert: Subdivision CB — Unpaid family and domestic violence leave 106F Entitlement to unpaid family and domestic violence leave (1) An employee is entitled to 4 days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave in a 12 month period. (2) Unpaid family and domestic violence leave: (a) is available in full at the start of each 12 month period of the employee's employment; and (b) does not accumulate from year to year; and (c) is available in full to part-time and casual employees. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), if an employee is employed by a particular employer: (a) as a casual employee; or (b) for a specified period of time, for a specified task or for the duration of a specified season; the start of the employee's employment is taken to be the start of the employee's first employment with that employer. (4) The employee may take unpaid family and domestic violence leave as: (a) a single continuous 4 day period; or (b) separate periods of one or more days each; or (c) any separate periods to which the employee and the employer agree, including periods of less than one day. (5) To avoid doubt, this section does not prevent the employee and the employer agreeing that the employee may take paid or unpaid leave in addition to the entitlements in subsection 106A(1) and subsection (1) of this section to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence. 106G Taking unpaid family and domestic violence leave The employee may take unpaid family and domestic violence leave if: (a) the employee has experienced, or is experiencing, family and domestic violence; and (b) the employee needs to do something to deal with the impact of the family and domestic violence; and (c) it is impractical or unsafe for the employee to do that thing outside the employee's work hours. Note 1: Examples of actions by an employee who has experienced, or is experiencing, family and domestic violence, that could be covered by paragraph (b) include (but are not limited to) arranging for the care or safety of the employee or a close relative (including relocation), attending court hearings, accessing police services, attending counselling and attending appointments with medical, financial or legal professionals or government services. Note 2: The notice and evidence requirements of section 107 must be complied with Note 3: For the meaning of family and domestic violence and close relative, see subsections 106B(2) and (3). 106H Confidentiality (1) Employers must take steps to ensure information concerning any notice or evidence an employee has given under section 107 of the employee taking leave under this Subdivision is treated confidentially, as far as it is reasonably practicable to do so. (2) Nothing in this Subdivision prevents an employer from disclosing information provided by an employee if the disclosure is required by an Australian law or is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the employee or another person. Note: Information covered by this section that is personal information may also be regulated under the Privacy Act 1988. 106J Operation of unpaid family and domestic violence leave and leave for victims of crime (1) This Subdivision does not exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory to the extent that it provides for leave for victims of crime. (2) If an employee who is entitled, under a law of a State or Territory, to leave for victims of crime is also entitled to leave under this Subdivision, that law applies in addition to this Subdivision. (3) A person who is a national system employee only because of section 30C or 30M is entitled to leave under this Subdivision only to the extent that the leave would not constitute leave for victims of crime. Note: Leave for victims of crime is a non-excluded matter under paragraph 27(2)(h). 106K Entitlement to days of leave What constitutes a day of leave for the purposes of this Subdivision is taken to be the same as what constitutes a day of leave for the purposes of sections 72A and 85 and Subdivisions B and C. (6) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 4), after item 21, insert: 21AA At the end of subsection 107(3) Add: ; or (e) if it is unpaid family and domestic violence leave, and the employee has met the requirement specified in paragraph 106G(a)—the leave is taken for the purpose specified in paragraph 106G(b), and the requirement specified in paragraph 106G(c) is met. (7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (line 8), after "Paid", insert "and Unpaid". (8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (line 13), after "Paid", insert "and Unpaid". (9) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (line 22), omit "paid". (10) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (line 29), omit "paid". (11) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph 53(2)(b), substitute: (b) the provisions of Subdivision CB of Division 7 of Part 2-2 as inserted by Schedule 1 to the amending Act; (c) section 107, to the extent that it relates to taking leave under either of those Subdivisions. (12) Schedule 2, item 1, page 9 (line 9), after "violence leave", insert ", unpaid family and domestic violence leave". (13) Schedule 2, item 1, page 9 (line 13), omit "paid". (14) Schedule 2, item 3, page 9 (line 23), after "paid family and domestic violence leave", insert ", unpaid family domestic violence leave". (15) Schedule 2, page 10 (after line 8), after item 5, insert: 5A At the end of subsection 106J(1) Add: Note: Leave for victims of crime is a non-excluded matter under paragraph 27(2)(h). 5B Section 106J (note) Repeal the note, substitute: Note: To the extent that leave would constitute leave for victims of crime, the entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave is extended to the persons mentioned in subsection (3) by Division 2A of Part 6-3 (see subsection 757B(2)). (16) Schedule 2, item 7, page 10 (line 16), omit "paid". (17) Schedule 2, item 8, page 11 (line 2), at the end of the paragraph beginning "Division 2A extends the entitlements to paid", add "and unpaid family and domestic violence leave". (18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 5 and 6), omit the heading to Division 2A, substitute: Division 2A — Extension of entitlements to paid family and domestic violence leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave (19) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 16 and 17), omit "an entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "entitlements to paid family and domestic violence leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave". (20) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (lines 21 and 22), omit the heading to section 757B, substitute: 757B Extending family and domestic violence leave entitlements (21) Schedule 2, item 9, page 11 (line 24), omit "Subdivision CA", substitute "Subdivisions CA and CB". (22) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (after line 4), after note 1, insert: Note 1A: Subdivision CB of Division 7 of Part 2-2 provides for unpaid family and domestic violence leave. (23) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (after line 20), after subsection 757B(2), insert: (2A) To the extent that a person would not be entitled to leave under Subdivision CB of Division 7 of Part 2-2 because of subsection 106J(3), the provisions of Subdivision CB of Division 7 of Part 2-2, and the related provisions identified in subsection (3), apply in relation to the person, and the person's employer, as if subsection 106J(3) were omitted. Note: Subsection 106J(3) has the effect that a person who is a national system employee only because of section 30C or 30M is not entitled to leave under the Subdivision to the extent that the leave would constitute leave for victims of crime. (24) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 23 and 24), omit "Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2 as it applies because of subsections (1) and (2)", substitute "Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2 as it applies because of subsections (1) and (2), or Subdivision CB of Division 7 of Part 2-2 as it applies because of subsections (1) and (2A)". (25) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (line 31), after "Subdivision CA", insert "or CB". (26) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 2), omit "paid". (27) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 4), omit "paid". (28) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 5), omit "Subdivision CA", substitute "Subdivisions CA and CB". (29) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 9), omit "Subsections (1) and (2)", substitute "Subsections (1), (2) and (2A)". (30) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 12), omit "paid". (31) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 14), omit "paid". (32) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "paid". (33) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 22), omit "paid". (34) Schedule 2, item 9, page 13 (line 29), omit "paid". (35) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (line 1), omit "paid". (36) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (line 6), omit "paid". (37) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (line 14), omit "paid". (38) Schedule 2, item 9, page 14 (line 20), omit "paid". (39) Schedule 2, item 9, page 15 (line 4), omit "paid". (40) Schedule 2, item 9, page 15 (line 9), omit "paid". (41) Schedule 2, item 11, page 15 (line 18), omit "paid". SHEET 1653 (1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 4), after item 21, insert: 21A After section 351 Insert: 351A Experiencing family and domestic violence (1) An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because the person has experienced, or is experiencing, family and domestic violence. Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following provisions apply as if any reference in the provisions to a national system employee were a reference to an employee, or a prospective employee, within the meaning of this Part: (a) subsections 106B(2) and (3) (which define family and domestic violence and close relative); (b) any provisions of this Act that define (directly or indirectly) expressions that are used in subsections 106B(2) and (3). Note: This subsection applies to express references to national system employees, and to references that are to national system employees because of section 60 or another similar section. 21B Subsection 539(2) (cell at table item 11, column 1) After "351(1)", insert: 351A(1) (2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of Part 12, add: 53A General protections relating to family and domestic violence (1) Section 351A, as inserted by Schedule 1 to the amending Act, applies in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement of that Schedule. (2) This clause has effect despite clause 52. I will briefly speak to these amendments. The first set, on sheet 1641, are minor amendments to the definitions and to the notes to clarify the eligibility for family and domestic violence leave. We welcome the bill's existing amendments to provide more examples of activities that would justify taking family and domestic violence leave. However, submitters like the Women's Legal Service, the Law Council and a few others told us that more clarity would help victims-survivors and employers. The amendments we have proposed to provide that clarity mean that leave would be available not just to those who are currently experiencing but to those who have experienced family and domestic violence. This responds to concerns from the Law Council that victims-survivors may need to access leave over a long period of time related to the same abuse. Even after an employee has escaped an abusive relationship and is no longer directly experiencing the violence, they might still need leave to attend court hearings or counselling or related medical appointments. The amendment I'm moving will also clarify that an employee can access leave to undertake activities that are unsafe for them to do outside of work hours. That expands the bill's existing provision which relates to activities that are impractical to undertake other than outside of work hours. This amendment says it could also be unsafe. Safety is a key issue in matters of keeping women free from violence. We think that's an important addition that would provide that reassurance. Also, we would like the note to be expanded so that the examples provided of the sorts of things for which you can seek to access the leave are nice and clear and give employees the reassurance, and employers the guidance, on the sorts of activities that might be permissible. That's our first set of amendments, on sheet 1641, which, for some reason, the government have said they won't support—although, frankly, they have absolutely no reason not to support it because it's a technical clarification amendment. I would urge them to rethink their opposition to that amendment. This is very simple and would be worthwhile doing. The second set of amendments, on sheet 1652, recognises the fact that 10 days paid leave won't always be enough to do all the things that are needed. This proposal would allow for additional unpaid leave days on top of the 10 days paid. The reason for that would be, as I've said, to ensure that workers have enough time to do the things they need to do. Also, that would reflect the best practice minimum standards in other jurisdictions. I am told that the government doesn't support those ones either, although, again, we wish they would. The final set of amendments, on sheet 1653, is another set of amendments that I think the government should give serious consideration to supporting. It would insert a new provision into the Fair Work Act to make experiencing, or having experienced, family and domestic violence a protected attribute. This is critical to preventing workplace discrimination against employees who disclose family and domestic violence. The whole objective of paid family and domestic violence leave is to drive cultural change and destigmatise disclosure. This set of amendments naturally supports that by ensuring employees who disclose family and domestic violence aren't then sacked or discriminated against for doing so. They are the substance of the three amendments that the Greens are seeking to move, and we urge the government not to wait for some review of this bill to consider those sensible amendments but just make them now. 19:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government does not agree with the three sheets of amendments the Greens are proposing in a number of cases because our very strong view is that the bill as it currently stands achieves exactly what the amendments are seeking to achieve. Just stepping through them quickly, for the amendment on sheet 1641 which seeks to broaden the wording to apply to an employee who has experienced family and domestic violence and also seeks to amend the wording to apply to situations where it's impractical or unsafe for an employee to do certain things, with the current wording of the bill, which talks about applying to an employee who is experiencing family and domestic violence, that is a flexible concept and picks up a broad time period in which a person experiences the consequences of the family and domestic violence. Other forms of leaves, such as personal and carers leave, may be available to eligible employees to deal with longer-term physical and psychological issues. We don't consider that it's necessary to add the word 'unsafe' to the particular clause in the bill. The existing clause refers to situations where it is impractical to do something, and I would find it very hard to believe that any court or tribunal would not consider something that is unsafe to also be impractical, so we think that that covers the field effectively. What Senator Waters described as the 'technical amendment' relates to a note to a clause. The note does not have operative effect, although it gives guidance to employers and courts as to the intended scope of a section. As Senator Waters would know, the Acts Interpretation Act also makes clear that examples in notes are not exhaustive, and the note itself clearly states that the examples are not exhaustive, so we don't believe that that part of the amendment is necessary. For the amendments on sheet 1652, we also do not agree with this one. This seeks to provide an entitlement for a further four days family and domestic violence leave annually where employees have exhausted their 10 days of annual paid leave. One of the underpinning policy objectives here is that employees can take leave to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence without the loss of income that they would have otherwise experienced. Of course, the National Employment Standards set out minimum requirements. Employers are already free to provide additional leave at their discretion, either on an ad hoc basis through workplace policies or as a result of bargaining. The bill also amends subsection 106A(5) to clarify that employers and employees can agree that the employee may take more paid or unpaid leave in addition to their minimum entitlement. The amendments on sheet 1653 seek to add a new section to the Fair Work Act to provide that an employer must not take adverse action against any person who is an employee or prospective employee because the person has experienced or is experiencing family and domestic violence. Again, we don't agree with this amendment because the act already does this. Exercising a workplace right, including taking or requesting to take paid family and domestic violence leave, is already protected by the general protections in the Fair Work Act. An employee requesting or taking family and domestic violence leave is protected from adverse action, including an employer dismissing an employee, injuring them in their employment, altering their position to their detriment or discriminating between them and other employees, and an employer refusing to employ a prospective employee or discriminating against them in the terms and conditions the employer offers. The existing Fair Work Act already does what the Greens are seeking to achieve via their amendments, so we don't support these amendments being made. 19:14 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks, Minister, for outlining that you think many of these amendments are already the intent of the bill. As you and I both know, the fact that you've said that also means that, when people are interpreting this bill, they can rely on that, so thank you. But just one question of clarification: in relation to amendments on sheet 1641, when we're talking about people who are experiencing versus those who have experienced, my ear picked up two things that sounded contradictory, so I'm just seeking your clarification. You said it was a flexible concept, but you then also said that people could use other forms of leave.   Could I just ask you to clarify whether it is your view that the current wording in the bill, which says that the leave is available to those who are experiencing FDV, is a broad enough definition to encompass those who have experienced it, or are you saying that, if it is a past abuse, you can use other forms of leave? It is a very important clarification. 19:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I will get a bit more advice on that. Perhaps we could hear from Senator Lambie or one of the other senators while I get that advice. 19:15 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have a request. I was wondering if we could split the question and vote on sheets 1652 and 1641 together and take sheet 1653 separately, please. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Certainly. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Thank you. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I am in the hands of the chamber. I might go back to the minister. 19:16 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): We certainly have no objection to Senator Lambie's request. The point I am making, Senator Waters, is that the legislation as currently drafted provides the entitlement to an employee who is experiencing family and domestic violence. I'm advised that the intent here is not to say that someone needs to be having violence inflicted upon them at that very moment in time. For instance, if it is violence that has been going on for some time—it might not be happening at the exact moment that the request is being made—and they are experiencing domestic violence because it has been happening in recent times, then they would be able to make a claim for that. I can't get into how long ago. As you know, every piece of legislation is left to courts and tribunals to interpret, using a reasonable person test. We're not saying that someone has to have experienced domestic violence in the last five days, five weeks or five months. We will leave it to courts to interpret that, as they do with every other piece of legislation, but I would think a reasonable person would interpret that legislation to say that if someone is experiencing family and domestic violence, maybe not necessarily at that exact moment in time but in recent times, and it is having an effect upon that person in the form of trauma or something else then they can make a claim.   19:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland For the sake of absolute clarity, I will put that in a simpler way and you can tell me whether or not I am correct. So you are saying that it also applies to people who have experienced domestic violence? That is exactly why we wanted to move the amendment—to put that beyond doubt—but I just want to confirm that. 19:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't really add to what I have already said. 19:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland People shouldn't have to go to court to understand the parameters of what are otherwise really good laws. It sounds to me like you want to support it but maybe you don't want to because the Greens name is on the top of the piece of paper, which has happened before. I am sorry, but I am getting a bit cross here. Can you please just let us know now whether or not your definition of those experiencing violence includes those who have experienced family and domestic violence? 19:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It is disappointing that, even in legislation dealing with a new form of leave for those experiencing family and domestic violence, the Greens will try to make a partisan point. In suggesting that we might be taking a position because it has a political party's name on it is a ridiculous partisan comment in debate on a really important piece of legislation, and I am disappointed that that comment has been made. This debate has been conducted in a very civil manner, without partisanship, and it is disappointing to hear a suggestion that we are taking a position because of the name of a party that is on an amendment. I am giving you the best advice I possibly can. Senator Waters, you are a lawyer, as I am, and you know that every piece of legislation that is passed by this parliament leaves matters open to interpretation by courts and tribunals. What I am saying to you, as I've said three times now, repeatedly, is that the words 'is experiencing', that someone is experiencing family and domestic violence, does not require that violence to be occurring at the moment in time that someone makes that request. We all know that people experience domestic violence beyond the time that violence is actually being physically inflicted. There's the trauma that it causes. And so if someone has had violence inflicted upon them, for example, in the days leading up to them making a request and they are traumatised by that and fearful of their position, then I would suggest that a reasonable court would interpret these laws to say that that person could take that leave. I'd appreciate it if we could keep the partisan comments out of a very important bill that I would like to think we can all support, just for once. 19:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I thank the minister for the clarification. I have reasons for making the statements that I made; I have no disgruntlement with the minister in the chamber, but we have sought for a very long time to get support for these amendments and have been stonewalled. It's not Minister Watt's fault, I just want the record to note that. I don't cast these aspersions lightly—there's a reason for why I've said them. But I thank the minister representing for his clarification on the scope of what those experiencing family and domestic violence means in this context. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 At the request of Senator Lambie we will deal with sheets 1652 and 1641. The first question before the committee will be that amendments (1) to (41) on sheet 1652, and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1641 be agreed to. Question negatived. 19:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—Again, in the interests of saving time, can I please ask that, rather than a division, and under the standing orders, the Greens' support for our very sensible amendments be recorded with our names in the Journals. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We'll move on to amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1653, that they be agreed to. Question negatived. 19:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—Likewise, under the standing orders, can we record the names of the Australian Greens in support for our own amendment? I believe that Senator Lambie might wish to do the same. 19:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments on sheet 1645, revised, (1) and (2): (1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of this Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the impact of the amendments made by this Act on: (a) small businesses; and (b) sole traders. (3) The persons who conduct the review must consider both quantitative and qualitative research in conducting the review. (4) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of Schedule 1. (5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. This amendment is intended to ensure an independent review is conducted into the operation of paid family and domestic violence leave, especially in relation to the impact the bill will have on small business and sole traders. The bill as currently before us does not have a review mechanism in place, and it is important with a change like this to the operation of the National Employment Standards that we review those changes to ensure that they are appropriate in the way that they have been developed. The committee that inquired into this bill—and I do thank Senator Matt O'Sullivan for all the work that he did—recommended that the Australian government commission an independent review of the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill to be undertaken 18 months after the commencement of this schedule. I do appreciate the cooperation that the government has provided to us. The amendment that they have requested, and which the opposition has agreed to, is in relation to section 2C, adding the words 'people experiencing family and domestic violence', and of course in relation to the amendment that has been moved by the opposition at part 4: The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of Schedule 1. I do thank the government for its support.   19:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Now that this amendment has been amended by the opposition, we will be supporting the revised amendment. The government was already intending to conduct a review of this legislation. With this amendment that's now been made to the original amendment, our concerns that the statutory review would not take into account the views and voices of survivors are resolved. That's why we will be supporting the revised amendment. 19:24 S 192970 Queensland enator WATERS (—) (): It is a very interesting change of position, because we heard the minister wrapping up on the second reader saying that the time frame was wrong and the scope was wrong. Now the scope's been changed to add in women, which is a very good, albeit belated, recognition from the opposition that survivors' experience should in fact be considered in reviewing the operation of these news laws. So, congratulations for remembering women in your proposed review. But the scope of the time for the review still has not been changed. The government earlier were objecting on the basis that 12 months was too short. Given the delayed implementation of these new laws for small business, they will have been in operation for only six months. The government's view earlier today was that that would not be enough time to adequately consider the impacts on small business. They've apparently changed their mind. Can I just add that it's also highly unusual to be reviewing a bill in this fashion in any case, and the only reason we would support this review would be to expand the scope of the bill. With that said, I will sit down. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chair is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1645 revised be agreed to. Question agreed to. 19:26 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move amendment (1) on sheet 1691: (1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 32), after item 19, insert: 19A Subsection 106C(2) Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute: (2) An employer must not, other than with the consent of the employee, use such information for a purpose other than satisfying itself in relation to the employee's entitlement to leave under this Subdivision. In particular, an employer must not use such information to take adverse action against an employee. (3) Subsection (2) has effect subject to subsection (4). (4) Nothing in this Subdivision prevents an employer from dealing with information provided by an employee if doing so is required by an Australian law or is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the employee or another person. Note: Information covered by this section that is personal information may also be regulated under the Privacy Act 1988. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1691 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 114 19:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 114

National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022

Second Reading 114 19:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The opposition is very pleased to support the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, because it enables the implementation of a key coalition election commitment—a commitment that the Labor Party was shamed into copying during the election campaign. The bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment by $12.50, from $42.50 to $30, saving patients on out-of-pocket expenses. The opposition remains absolutely committed to ensuring that Australians have access to affordable medicines when they need them, and we support this legislation to reduce the costs of medicines because the coalition has always been committed to ensuring that Australians can access essential and lifesaving medicines at an affordable price. The coalition has a strong record of delivering affordable, life-saving medicines for all Australians. We encourage this government to continue our policy of listing all medicines on the PBS that are recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council. The bill amends the PBS general co-payment from the current amount of $42.50 to a new amount of $30, taking effect as of 1 January 2023. For certain medicines or treatments that have a Commonwealth price between $30 and $42.50—which are indexed annually—the bill gives pharmacists an option to discount that price to general patients by more than $1 while supplying it as a PBS script. This ensures that no patient is worse off after the reduction of the general patient charge, given the established practice of pharmacists to be able to discount medicines that have a Commonwealth price at or below the current general patient charge. The bill gives effect to an election commitment made by Labor in response to the coalition's clear leadership on this issue. On 30 April 2022 the coalition announced an election commitment to reduce the PBS general patient charge by $10 as part of an annual $150 million hip pocket saving for Australians. We planned to wind the clock back on the cost of medications, reducing the cost per script back to 2008 prices. Following this announcement, on the very next day, Labor announced that they would reduce the general co-payment by an additional $2.50. I also note that in the budget last night Labor continued their longstanding commitment to copying coalition policies by listing medicines on the PBS that we had already announced were going to be listed. We had provisioned for skin cancer patients to get PBS access to Libtayo, which will benefit around a thousand patients with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma each year. Without this subsidy patients face costs of more than $144,000 for a single course of treatment. We had also provisioned for the 1,450 patients with advanced and metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancers to benefit from the listing extension of Opdivo on the PBS, saving these patients over $92,000 per course of treatment. Another copycat initiative of this new government is trying to claim credit for its funding of support for an additional 71,000 people who live with type 1 diabetes, enabling them to get access to subsidised continuous glucose monitoring—an initiative that was announced by the coalition government earlier this year. I welcome the government's decision to support these measures, and their recognition that the coalition is a policy leader when it comes to affordable medicines and supporting Australians who rely on them. We are pleased that we were able to lead the government into making commitments in this important policy area to support the hip pockets of Australians who rely on essential medicines and treatments. The coalition has a strong track record of providing Australians with timely, affordable access to effective medicines, treatments and services. When we were in government we listed more than 2,800 new or amended medicines on the PBS, representing an average of around 30 new listings per month. Most recently, from 1 April 2022, our strong economic plan meant that we were able to ensure that patients suffering from severe heart failure, high cholesterol and high blood pressure could afford cheaper medicines to treat their conditions. We were also able to list life-saving drugs to support Australians with asthma, prostate cancer, Castleman disease, HIV and Crohn's disease. This included the PBS listing of Trelegy Ellipta 200, which was funded by our government to be expanded for Australians with severe asthma. Asthma is a common chronic condition and can become serious, especially if untreated. Without the PBS subsidy over a thousand Australians may have paid more than a thousand dollars per year for treatment. Another integral listing supported by the former coalition government was an oral treatment that has shown improved survival outcomes for patients with prostate cancer who have specific gene variants. Prostate cancer is the second-most common cancer diagnosed in men in Australia and the most common cause of cancer death, with one in six men estimated to be diagnosed with prostate cancer by the age of 85. We did not plan to stop there. In the coalition's 22-23 budget we provisioned $2.4 billion for more new and amended PBS listings. These listings also included critical treatments for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, severe asthma, spinal muscular atrophy, HIV infection and heart failure. By listing medications on the PBS, we ensured that Australians have access to affordable, life-saving medications that, without a subsidy, would otherwise cost thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is disappointing that Labor had stopped listing medicines on the PBS when they were last in government in 2011 because they couldn't manage money. Australians requiring medicines to treat severe asthma, chronic pain, schizophrenia, blood clots, IVF, endometriosis and prostate conditions were all impacted by Labor's inability to afford important investments in the PBS. In announcing this legislation, the Albanese government highlighted the reduction in the copayment as a cost-of-living relief measure to address the significant pressures facing Australians right now right across the country. Although the opposition supports reducing the cost of medicines to provide relief directly to the hip pockets of Australians, it is important to note this is one of the very few cost-saving relief measures the Albanese government has announced in its budget so far and it also does not take effect until 2023. We on this side support Labor's bill to reduce the general copayment for medicines on the PBS; however, we hope that they do not consider their job done on supporting Australian families with the rising cost of living by this one initiative. The opposition has significant concerns that the Albanese government could fall back into their old pattern of having to stop making critical investments into essential supports for Australians and we will hold the government to account so they do not repeat the disaster of their poor economic management in their last term in government that saw important medicines stop being listed. I commend this bill to the Senate. 19:36 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill to reduce the general copayment of PBS items from $42 50 down to $30. We know in doing this that this is in fact the bare minimum that this government could be doing to improve access to medical supports that members of our community need at the moment. I hear from many members of our community, particularly from young people, that when they seek support, particularly mental health support, they are confronted with a system that either does not have the capacity to see them in a timely manner or simply costs too much. Members of our community need access to affordable and accessible Medicare services like never before. They need their dental care to be covered under Medicare. They need their mental health supports to be covered. They need their GP to be affordable and to be well trained. Tax cuts for billionaires, like those which were provided in the budget last night during a time when people can't afford to see the dentist, to go to a doctor, to access mental health supports when they need them, is a completely unjustifiable move by this Labor government. I will flag in this contribution that the Greens will be supporting the amendments offered by Senator Pocock. The amendments to this bill offered by the senator relate to section 100 to ensure that decisions made under the section 100 powers are always created as legislative instruments, allowing them to be scrutinised and to be disallowed, ultimately, should the Senate see fit. I have actively questioned the health department at Senate estimates about the section 100 programs under the National Health Act, particularly in relation to the opioid dependency treatment program. Opioid dependency is a complex health condition that requires long-term support and long-term care. Such treatment programs for opioid dependency make a real impact on people's lives. I will say that again: programs like the opioid dependency treatment program make real impacts on people's lives. These are real programs that shape people's lives every single day and this particular program, as constituted and enabled under the section 100 provisions, has come into being and been enforced through an instrument that is not subject to the scrutiny of this parliament. Scrutiny in these issues is so vitally important because it acts as a counterbalance on government, particularly when government thinks that it can get away with mistreating people—when it thinks it can get away with placing burdens upon communities because those communities are subject to stigma. And that is very much the case with those who access this particular program. I'll say this again very clearly: the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill is the bare minimum that the Australian community needs. Let's get the Australian community the health care that they actually deserve. Let's get dental care into Medicare. Let's get mental health into Medicare. Let this Senate proclaim the radical proposition that the teeth and the brain are part of the body! The Greens will continue to make this logical case for the expansion of Medicare and to work with our community to drive out stigma and barriers, where they exist, and to work to reshape the system in line with community need. 19:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak in support of the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill. This bill provides welcome and needed cost-of-living relief to people who regularly use medicines. I would have liked to have seen the government extend the support to concessional payments, noting that prices of concessional medicines are about to increase in line with record inflation figures. I'll be moving a separate amendment on this bill during the Committee of the Whole stage but would like to speak to it now to save time. Section 100 of the National Health Act allows the minister to make special arrangements for the supply of medicines. One such special arrangement is the Opiate Dependence Treatment Program, sometimes referred to as the ODTP. As it currently stands, this arrangement compels pharmacists to charge private dispensing fees for opiate-dependence treatments. Studies have shown these fees vary markedly across the country. While some pharmacies may charge as little as $1.50 per dose, some may charge up to $10. Therefore the average cost for a patient can exceed $1,800 per year. For some, it can be as high as $3,640 a year. It's worth remembering that for every other PBS medicine the government will pay the dispensing fee. Also, those dispensing fees are charged on a per prescription basis, whereas for opiate-dependence treatments they are charged on a per dose basis because of this special arrangement. The effect of this has been truly disappointing. These fees provide a financial barrier for people looking to manage their addiction. It's no stretch to say that these fees are actually contributing to deaths that could be prevented. This was substantiated in a 2019 coronial inquest in New South Wales which found that it was 'alarmingly clear that many opioid deaths are genuinely preventable'. The New South Wales Coroner further recommended: That urgent attention is given to improving the affordability of drugs substitution programs … for all drug addicted persons wanting to access them. Three years on, and not much has been done. Three people likely died yesterday from an overdose, and, by the end of the day, another three people in Australia will likely die today. And this is all preventable. In Australia, guaranteed access to safe and effective medicines is a much loved, well protected component of Medicare. Our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme provides financial protection to all Australians accessing any PBS medicine. Whether you're managing diabetes, a heart condition or reflux, you're guaranteed access to affordable medicines. Through the PBS, the government will subsidise the price of the medication if it's too expensive. The PBS also protects people who need lots of medicines throughout a year, through the PBS Safety Net. Once a person hits the safety net, they pay the concessional price for medicines or, if they're already paying concessional prices, then their medicines are provided for free. Once a person hits the safety net, they pay the concessional price for medicines or, if they're already paying concessional prices, their medicines are then provided for free. Senators may be alarmed to find out that the protections of the PBS safety net have been removed for opioid dependence treatments through this special arrangement, despite them being PBS medicines. There's no rationale for this. People accessing opioid dependence treatments are also subject to cost-of-living pressures, including rising healthcare costs. It is bad policy at best and discrimination at worst to remove a nationally guaranteed protection for a group of people living with addiction disorder. The research is clear that these fees put people in a position where they have to choose between treatment and food. Some will skip meals to afford their treatment. Others will have no choice but to relapse or seek treatment in the already stretched public system. It is important to remember that opioid deaths and hospitalisations are caused by prescription opioids. Some of these prescription opioids are on the PBS, and do count towards a patient's annual safety net. In that regard, the cost of the poison can be cheaper than their treatment. This special arrangement has baked in a financial disincentive for people to start treatment. This arrangement also negatively impacts community pharmacies. These are small businesses that have to make decisions to accrue debt in the interests of providing good health care, and that's exactly what they're doing across the country. In a survey of pharmacies in New South Wales and Victoria, over 70 per cent reported that they were providing credit—often bad credit—to patients who are unable to pay their dispensing fees. I applaud these pharmacies for making these compassionate decisions to help members of their communities. While it speaks to the integrity of our healthcare providers that they are willing to make these decisions, they shouldn't have to. The parliament has not been given an opportunity to review the specific arrangement due to the way it was constituted. The arrangement has been set up under a non-legislative instrument. It has therefore never been considered by our Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It has been set up to specifically put it out of the reach of the people in this chamber. I don't think that that is appropriate and it may not even be lawful. My amendment would make clear that all arrangements under section 100 must be legislative instruments by 1 July 2023. This has the effect of giving back to the Senate its oversight of these arrangements. It also puts a time line on actually having a reform to this existing instrument. If the current arrangement is not made a legislative instrument by this date, I am advised, it will cease. I thank Minister Butler and his office for engaging with me on this important issue and for committing to reform. I understand there is a process to engage states and territories in this process and this may take some time. Nonetheless, in the interests of those struggling every day, I urge the government to do all they can to ensure that this is dealt with as quickly as possible. I thank senators for their consideration of this amendment. 19:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Over the last two days, the House of Representatives has debated legislation to introduce the biggest cut to the cost of medicines for Australian households in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—a cut in price for general patients of almost 30 per cent to the maximum cost of their scripts from $42.50 to just $30. It was a Labor government that first introduced legislation to make life-saving drugs more affordable, and the Albanese government now remains committed to ensuring that the PBS continues to enable Australians to access affordable medicines. After almost a decade of neglect by the Liberal and National parties, the costs of living are soaring with many Australians cutting back on essentials to make ends meet. They are being forced to choose between filling prescriptions for potentially life-saving medicines and providing for their families. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the maximum general patient co-payment under the PBS from the current maximum of $42.50 to $30. From 1 January 2023 around 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions over $30 will benefit through this initiative of the Albanese Labor government. People filling a prescription for one medication per month will save around $150 a year, while a family filling prescriptions for two or three medications per month could save $300 to $450 per year. The bill will ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australian households are experiencing around the country, but this bill will also have a profound benefit to public health. We know from the Bureau of Statistics that every year as many as 900,000 Australians go without the medicines that their doctors have said are important for their health simply because they cannot afford them. There is no doubt that all Australians place great value on the medicines and essential health care the PBS provides. All Australians deserve access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. Pharmacist after pharmacist has told stories of their customers coming into their pharmacy, putting a number of scripts on their counter and asking for advice about which ones they can go without because they can't afford to fill all of the scripts that their doctor has said are important for their health. We know this policy will make a difference because of what Australians are telling us. Cherie from Bribie Island, in my home state of Queensland, says that after buying medications she must also pay for groceries and rent. Every dollar adds up, and she doesn't want to have to choose. She knows this change will make a big difference for her and her friends. Grace, a 20-year-old type 1 diabetic who has just moved out of home, told the health minister, Mark Butler, 'I am so thankful that insulin will be cheaper for me now that I live out of home.' Cornelia said: 'This will make such a difference to us. My husband is on about a dozen scripts a month to keep him well enough to keep on working. He's been able to work in a physical job thanks to great specialists, GPs, pharmacists and especially research staff, and thanks to the PBS we can just about afford all of these drugs. Any further discounts will help enormously.' This bill will ensure patients receive the essential medical care needed to prevent serious illness and stay healthy. It will allow Australians to shop around to get the best price for their medicine. The bill will ensure that no Australian will be worse off under this change by including provisions to allow pharmacies to continue offering discounts at current levels to their customers. Right now Australians are paying the price for a decade of missed opportunities and drift. Through this bill we'll make a real difference to household budgets for millions of families but also to people's health. After nine years of neglect from the former government, the costs of living are soaring and Australians are cutting back on essentials to make ends meet. The maximum cost to general patients for PBS medications has doubled since 2000, and the previous government did nothing to help. The Liberals and Nationals, when they were in power, committed to cutting the costs of medicines, but only the Albanese Labor government committed to cutting the general patient maximum co-contribution from $42.50 to just $30. Cutting the maximum price by nearly one-third will mean more people can afford to get the medications they need to stay healthy. This change will put close to $200 million back into the pockets of Australians each year. Just like Medicare, it was Labor that built the PBS and Labor will always protect it so that all Australians can access affordable medicines when they need them. I thank all senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 118 19:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1684 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Page 6 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Special arrangements National Health Act 1953 1 Subsections 100(1) and (2) After "The Minister may", insert ", by legislative instrument,". Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 119 19:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022, Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022 119

Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022

Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022

Second Reading 119 19:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022. The coalition understands that this legislation will become law and we will be supporting the bill. However, in my second reading contribution I want to acknowledge the significant deficiencies that have become apparent in the legislation that is being looked at before the Senate. The coalition is sceptical about the benefit of the new arrangements, given that it has taken considerable time for any clarity on the organisation itself, the structure of the organisation and its remit. The government's stated objectives are to drive vocational education and training and to strengthen workforce planning by establishing an organisation that includes employers, unions and the training and education sector. It is important to note that this is the first of two tranches of legislation regarding Jobs and Skills Australia. The bill before us merely establishes the agency within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. It is unfortunate that the Labor Party were not able to outline the full remit and scope of this agency or how it will operate before they pressed ahead with establishing a new part of the bureaucracy. As a result, over 150 days into this new government, we only just recently found out the full remit of Jobs and Skills Australia. It is, frankly, just a reconfigured National Skills Commission, with some union paymasters appointed to the board. While developing better information, coordination and leadership of Australia's workforce and skills is a noble aspiration, this function is already being provided by the National Skills Commission, established by the former coalition government in 2020. Over our nine years in government, the coalition strengthened and expanded Australia's vocational education and training system—after, of course, we cleaned up the mess that the former Labor government had wreaked on the VET sector in Australia. I am particularly referring to their disastrous VET-FEE HELP policy, which decimated vocational education and training in this country. The coalition achieved record investment in skilling Australians, including our $2 billion JobTrainer Fund, which was specifically training Australians in areas of labour market demand, and our $1.9 billion for the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees program, which is, without a doubt, one of the most successful programs a government has ever put in place in relation to apprentices. The coalition introduced this wage subsidy to shield apprentices and trainees from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic—because, when a pandemic hits, who are the first people to be let go? It is the apprentices. The coalition understood that we needed to take strong and decisive action to ensure that this didn't occur, and we were successful. There was $1.91 billion in wage subsidies paid through the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees program. We have assisted with that wage subsidy around 74,900 employers and we supported over 152,700 apprentices and trainees. We also invested $1.5 billion in our Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements. In terms of that, we invested $4.8 billion over four years, from 2020 to 2025, through the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy, to support businesses and group training organisations to take on new apprentices and trainees during the pandemic. This included $1.2 billion that we announced in the 2020-21 budget, and a further $2.7 billion announced in the 2021-22 budget. We also invested $716 million to help second- and third-year Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements apprentices to complete. The coalition government expanded support to help apprentices finish their training, protecting the skills pipeline delivered under the government's successful $3.9 billion Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program. We actually had record trade apprentices in training: 220,000 of them. We established the National Skills Commission, which tonight, unfortunately, we will be abolishing, to identify emerging and future workforce skill needs. We delivered 10 industry training hubs in regions with high youth unemployment—I understand that they also, unfortunately, will be cut by the Albanese government. We delivered $75.3 million to revitalise TAFE campuses across Australia and, of course, there was our $585 million investment to deliver on the report for the skills and training system for tomorrow. The National Skills Commission currently, under the outstanding leadership of the National Skills Commissioner, Adam Boyton, monitors reports, researches and analyses employment dynamics across different groups, industries, occupations and regions. It considers how changes in the labour market will impact jobs and how those changes will impact the economy's education and skills needs. It also has an important role in simplifying and strengthening Australia's vocational education and training system. The Minister for Skills and Training actually stated that Jobs and Skills Australia will build on the National Skills Commission and has, given the resource profile, indicated that National Skills Commission staff will come across to Jobs and Skills Australia. In fact, we are told that Jobs and Skills Australia will be cost neutral because the existing funding for the National Skills Commission will cover the work for Jobs and Skills Australia. So the question that really does need to be asked is: is the new agency doing more than the current agency, the very successful National Skills Commission, or is it doing the same amount of work? It appears that Labor are just rebranding the National Skills Commission. Of course, this is something that the coalition will be monitoring very, very carefully because we know that the National Skills Commission has done, under Adam Boyton, absolutely outstanding work. The National Skills Commission was of course a key part of how the coalition government got the vocational education and training sector in Australia back on track. As I said in my opening comments, the coalition of course, when we came into government, inherited an absolute mess. The absolute decimation of the vocational education and training sector in Australia had been caused by the former Labor government, by certain policy decisions that they had made. What worries me more than anything, particularly when we look at the bill that we have before us tonight, is that we're over 150 days into the Albanese government and it is becoming increasingly clear that they have no plans for skills in Australia. On any analysis, the Labor Party inherited a booming skills and training sector from the coalition government. There was, again, on any analysis—anyone will tell you—real momentum in skills and training, thanks to the policy decisions that had been made by the former coalition government. The few announcements that we have seen the Albanese government make have been delayed in implementation—of course, to align with the much-hyped Jobs and Skills Summit, where the Prime Minister announced an additional 180,000 fee-free TAFE places for 2023. It sounds good, but it also belies the truth. We have since learned that the Prime Minister misled the Jobs and Skills Summit. His training blitz is nothing more—as we now know and, quite frankly should have expected—than marketing spin, with the vast majority of funded positions not new or additional at all. In fact, reports in the Australian newspaper suggest that of the 180,000 committed places, over 66 per cent already exist and will only be further subsidised—hardly attracting real momentum in skills and training in Australia. In fact, just 45,000 of them will be new and all of them were already announced as part of Labor's fee-free TAFE pre-election commitment. Most incredibly, 15,000 of the aged-care places were announced in the coalition government's March budget through its JobTrainer fund. So the Labor Party, in doing that, have re-announced 15,000 new places that we announced when we were in government in March. I think, though, possibly from the skills summit, the announcement that has well and truly sent shivers down the spine of the industry-led training providers is the Prime Minister's reveal that—quite literally—the funding will go to public training providers only. This has sent a shiver through the industry-led training providers because we know that privately registered training organisations do 75 to 80 per cent of the training across our VET sector in Australia. On top of that, they're estimated to train 79 per cent of all women across the training system. The coalition's perspective is very clear, unlike the Albanese government's perspective. We need an even-handed approach, to the entire skills sector, that provides choice for our next generation. We would be extremely concerned if Jobs and Skills Australia embedded a bias for any part of the skills sector, so we need to safeguard and prevent unions from dominating this agency and turning it into an entity that only backs public providers in Australia. When I look at the Labor Party's track record on skills, again, I start to fear for the success of this agency. When they were last in government, despite all their talk, despite all their rhetoric, despite all their announcements, Labor delivered system-wide policy failures. In fact, many in the sector still talk about the dark old days of the former Labor government and the system policy failures that they delivered. The last Labor government decimated vocational education and training in Australia. Apprenticeship numbers took a nosedive. That is the reality when it comes to skills policy: Labor failed. When they last left office, apprentice and trainee numbers were in freefall, with the number in training collapsing by 22 per cent or 111,300 between June 2012 and June 2013. This was as a direct result of funding cuts by the Gillard Labor government in 2012. The worst policy failure, when it came to skills and training under the former Labor government, was the disastrous VET FEE-HELP system, which literally saw the reputation of Australia's skills system hit rock bottom—as tens of thousands of Australians were loaded up with debt for doing courses that would never, ever land them a job. That is, of course, if the course they had enrolled for even existed. I hate to tell the taxpayer, but in 2022 you are still picking up the tab for this enormous public failure, to the tune of now over $3.3 billion. That is $3.3 billion the Australian taxpayer has paid out in relation to Labor's disastrous policy of VET FEE-HELP. In fact, over half a billion dollars—$516 million—was paid to over 37,000 students in the last financial year alone. That is the legacy of the former Labor government when it comes to skills in Australia. The scheme was established by the Labor government in 2008, expanded in 2012, and was plagued by system-wide rorting, with some training providers exploiting loose rules and charging students substantial debts for training that they never undertook or benefited from. It also targeted people with disabilities and substance abuse issues, public housing residents, non-English speakers and others with—lo and behold!—offers of free laptops and other incentives. That is the system the coalition government inherited from Labor, and yet we turned it around. We turned it around with good policy decisions. The system that the Labor government have inherited from us is one that, quite frankly, should be the envy of many in the world. So, yes, whilst this bill will pass through the Senate tonight, we fear it is nothing more and nothing less than effectively reconstituting the coalition's successful National Skills Commission. But the one fundamental change—and we will explore this in the committee stage—is with some union directors. I certainly hope that, unlike other poor Labor policy, it does not end up costing Australia and the Australian taxpayer billions and billions of dollars for minimal and adverse outcomes.   The Senate transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.