2022-11-23 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 23 November 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. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 09:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move: That the following bills be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills: (a) Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020, today; and (b) Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 on Thursday, 24 November 2022. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 1

Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1 09:03 Senator BK6 Queensland HANSON ( — ) ( ): I rise to speak on One Nation's Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. The purpose of this legislation is to give parents the legal right to protect their children from indoctrination at school. This bill is aimed at ensuring schools and teachers do what they're supposed to do, rather than what many of them are doing today. They are supposed to educate our children. They are not supposed to indoctrinate them with Marxism. They are not supposed to groom them into believing they can be a boy one day and a girl the next. They are not supposed to recruit them as warriors for climate change or social justice. These are decisions that Australians must only make for themselves when they are old enough. At school age, they are not old enough. But they are very easily influenced and, with their education system thoroughly infiltrated by activists and disturbing concepts about race, climate and gender grounded in disproven neo-Marxist theories, our kids are leaving school without the education they need. This system is infiltrated by teachers who themselves have been indoctrinated in woke universities. Only last week, we saw a story in which university students' assignments were marked down just because they hadn't included an acknowledgement of country. It's hurting our kids. During COVID lockdowns, when schools closed down and parents had to help educate kids with the assistance of education departments, many parents were shocked to discover the indoctrination going on. They discovered their children were being indoctrinated with values and concepts that they could not possibly share. They discovered their children were being told they were evil, racist oppressors just because they were white and that they should feel shame and remorse for it. They discovered their children were being groomed into believing they could choose their own gender at a whim, biology be damned. They found their children were being terrorised by climate change prophecies of doom. This is what was happening in schools, and I refer to an article here: Colouring-in posters given to year 1 students at a NSW primary school—accusing Australians of genocide—have been called "indoctrination" and "propaganda". The posters, promoted as part of NAIDOC week at a public primary school in central west NSW and displayed on a school hall, sparked a complaint by a parent and were raised in NSW parliament by One Nation MP Mark Latham. The posters depict raised fists and state: "White Australia has a Blak History, No Pride in Genocide, Stop the Lies! Stop Stealing Our Kids, Blak Lives Matter!" This is what is being taught or our schools by these people, pushing their own ideology and their own agenda. In another school, a mother was concerned at sending her child to these childcare centres. Her feelings were: 'Feeling sideswiped by the news of IDAHOBIT Day at the day care, I called the centre manager. I was informed that not only was Rainbow Day on the agenda'—this is children under five years of age we are talking about!—'but that LGBTQ material was a part of the children's' curriculum.' Give me a break! We are talking about a person's sex or their sexual preferences, and we are teaching kids this? Let the children grow up and be adults before they decide what you are imposing. As I said, we are opposed to paedophiles grooming children for what they want to do to our children. Why is this any different? Why is this not grooming our children at a very young age? We are confusing them as to what they should be or shouldn't be—whether male or female or their sexual preference. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't happen to a child of school age or five years of age or even younger. That is something they will decide later in life. It's not up to our educators, babysitters, childcare centres or anyone else to actually do this. This has been pushed by the Greens for years and years. This is all the Greens. And the Labor Party has done exactly the same and headed down this path. What I was told nearly 30 years ago by people who came to see me in my office was that lecturers at the university were told that they had to teach a certain way, otherwise they wouldn't have their jobs. That's exactly what is happening. Apart from this, we actually have had the welcome to country or acknowledgement of country being rammed down our throats. Every time you turn around—at a movie or on an aeroplane—this is all being rammed down our throats. The fact is that Australians are fed up with it. Until we actually change what is happening, these people will be destroying our children's little minds. Childcare centres are there to look after our children, not indoctrinate them. In our school system, they're not there to indoctrinate our kids with this garbage that's been fed to them. Schools are there to teach social services, geography, and history. They are there to actually teach the kids most of all, which they are failing, how to read and write. It's absolutely disgraceful that you want to push this agenda. This mother went on to say: 'I'm very supportive of adults making their own decisions about how they live their lives, but it is wholly unacceptable to use children to make a group of adults feel validated about their own decisions and sexual way of life.' How true is that? We are allowing these adults to validate their own feelings and their own sexuality, and we're pushing it on. Here in Australia, where we have seen the debate about transgender, in the 2016 census there were only 1,200 people who identified as transgender. But, no, we've got to change our whole society for those people who feel transgender or have their issues! You don't change what is normal, the norm, for the rest of the world or the country just because you've got to make a few people feel good about themselves or be inclusive. This is about a commonsense approach—that we don't change our way of thinking for a few out there. We don't change because they don't know whether they're male or female. No wonder so many kids are confused. I was just talking to my eight-year-old grandson, and I said: 'Are you told at school that you can be a boy or a girl?'—and he is an eight-year-old boy, I can tell you!—and he said: 'Oh, yes. We're told we can choose whether we want to be male or female. We actually had a kid come to school in grade 5 and he dressed as a girl.' I said: 'How do you feel about that?' He said: 'We all know he's a boy. We don't know why he dresses as a girl.' He said, 'I'm totally confused by it.' That's what you're doing to our kids. And you are allowing this to happen. I am saying to parents out there that they need to start to wake up to themselves. I think they are. Parents are saying to me, 'What can we do about it?' That's why they are contacting Mark Latham, who is a voice for this. I am a voice for this. Malcolm Roberts has been a voice for this. There are a few people who are speaking out about these things and really are standing up and trying to push back. They had a real issue in the UK about all this indoctrination that's going on of kids in school. Even in the climate change debate that's going on at the moment, there are lies, absolute lies, and an agenda that is being pushed. You are not actually telling people the truth to give them a balanced view about this. Critical race theory is being brought into our educational system. Psychologists in training must actually learn about critical race theory and they have to acknowledge that they have been the suppressors of the black race in this nation. Senator Faruqi 250362 Yes, because it's the truth. Senator HANSON BK6 That's what they have to tell them. This is what's being taught in school. Senator Faruqi 250362 Yes, they should. Senator BK6 The interaction from the Greens is: 'Yes, they should.' Oh, right! This is really good! Thank you for the interaction. They have been pushing this. You are misleading the people of this nation. You are teaching them stuff that is not the real truth. You are not giving a balanced view. You're pushing your own ideology and your own agenda, which is destroying our nation. No wonder people— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson, speak through me, through the chair. Senator HANSON BK6 Educators argue there is no need for legislation to protect children from indoctrination because schoolchildren can use their critical-thinking skills. That's a cop-out, because students are no match for an adult using their position of power to instruct. The children can't answer back. Parents have the responsibility to decide how their children will be educated, provided it is in the best interests of the children. Parents want their children educated, not indoctrinated. Firstly, the bill seeks to prevent indoctrination by placing an obligation on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to develop a balanced curriculum for states and territories to adopt. This is currently not the case in many subject areas, including climate. I'll tell you why. The teachers are complaining they don't get the assistance or the help from the education department on what the curriculum is. They are struggling to come up with curriculum. That's why they need help from the education department. We need a broad-based curriculum for the schools to actually ensure that they are teaching our kids correctly. We've got teachers coming out of universities that can't even read and write properly themselves. They are put into the educational system and they are not up to the standard. This is why we have a failure, with many kids not being able to read and write. Our teachers need assistance. They need help. But we have to ensure they are up to the job of teaching the kids in our educational system. If teachers were up to the job, we wouldn't have the failure that we are having at the moment. Nearly half of our kids of 15 years of age are more than two years behind in the education system compared to our counterparts in Singapore and China. Why is that the case? It's because they are not being properly taught. We have changed our curriculums from the years gone by when I attended school, and it has now failed our kids. It needs to change. I call on parents: get some backbone about you. It's your children we are talking about—the future generations of this nation. They must have the right to critical thinking. They must have the right to question this. We must have a balance of both sides of the argument. I went into this especially with regard to climate science. The curriculum says, 'Most agree that human activity is responsible for the majority of measured global warming. Climate science is far from settled, however, with no-one knowing the climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.' Secondly, the bill seeks to tie federal education funding to the existence of state and territory legislation and prohibits indoctrination in schools. The gender fluidity theory is widely taught in schools, even though it is a medical and scientific fact that inheritance from your father of a Y chromosome makes you a biological male, which can never be changed, and inheritance of an X chromosome from your father makes you a biological female. No-one can actually change that. Even today, people ask, 'What is a female?' They're tripping over their bloody lower jaw because they don't even know how to answer the question: 'What is a female?' How ridiculous! The bureaucrats are sitting there, saying: 'Oh, I'm not game to answer that question. It might upset the Greens or the Labor Party or those who are my bosses who have got their jobs here because we push this ideology and this agenda.' That's how stupid it is. It's up to us as legislators. We sit here and listen to the claptrap that comes out of the Greens' mouths with all this bloody rubbish that they're pushing about gender fluidity and identity and LGBTIQ and 39-plus—I don't know how many there are. I can't believe how many sexual identities they want to impose on people, but, at the end of the day, we are male and we are female. We both play our own roles in our society, and that's who we are. Let the children grow up. Let them decide their own sexual preference, or whatever they want, at an age. Don't put them under the knife for castration or the destruction of their bodies that's allowed. If you speak out against that, you can be taken to the courts or fined. That's a ridiculous point as well. Let children be children. Parents: grow up and be parents. Take responsibility for your own children and what they're taught. And, if you don't like what they're being taught, then go and visit the schools and the teachers and the principals and have your say. 09:17 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. I will keep my remarks brief because we have already wasted enough time on this disgraceful bill. Senator Hanson, honestly, give it a rest. You are making a fool of yourself. What you are doing is despicable— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Faruqi, through me, please. Let's keep the debate respectful. Senator Faruqi 250362 Through you, Chair. Senator Hanson first introduced this legislation back in 2020. The Senate inquired into it then, and its conclusion didn't leave room for any interpretation. The committee said it was poorly drafted, vague and inconsistent. In short, it is bad legislation. But, in addition to being bad legislation, in a technical sense, this bill is just vile. It is transphobic. It is anti-science. It is an attempt to force a rewrite of the curriculum to require teaching of climate denialism and harmful, outdated ideas of gender and sexuality. In the dying days of the Scott Morrison government, the then education minister, shamefully, also took a leaf out of Pauline Hanson's One Nation's playbook and started waging offensive, pathetic and toxic history and culture wars. Do you know what one of my favourite things about the 2022 election has been? There are many, but one of my favourite things about the 2022 election has been that, along with the coalition, the 2022 election has rendered Senator Hanson and One Nation irrelevant. Like the coalition, Senator Hanson has failed to self-reflect on why One Nation has become irrelevant. I'll save her the time: they are irrelevant because their racist, divisive politics are there for everyone to see. If you need evidence, just look around this chamber or the other chamber. Both places are more progressive and more diverse than ever before. Senator Hanson is irrelevant because the Australian public realises that it's not immigrants who are making their lives hard. The Australian public realises it's not trans people who are making their lives hard. It's not climate science that's making their lives hard. It's not First Nations people who are making their lives hard. It is unscrupulous big corporations, fossil fuel giants, billionaires and far-right politicians like One Nation's who are sitting here that are making their lives hard. The bill amends the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 to require ACARA to ensure that school education provides what Senator Hanson considers a 'balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues'. It also amends the Australian Education Act 2013 to make financial assistance to states and territories conditional on them prohibiting what Senator Hanson calls 'indoctrination in schools'—such complete rubbish! Students should be encouraged to think critically, and they should be exposed to diverse viewpoints and perspectives. But that's not what this bill seeks to do. This bill is a vile, unsubtle, blatant attempt to force schools to spread ridiculous and cooked One Nation beliefs which would harm trans and gender-diverse students and introduce antiscience concepts into classrooms around the country. Schools would not be able to tell people in this country the history of how violent settlement took place and how we need to reconcile with that history. All that trans adults and children want is the right to live their lives with respect and dignity and to be who they are, like other people are able to do in this country. The restoring of this bill is a sad reflection that, after all this time, Senator Hanson remains a peddler of sad and hateful politics, spreading ignorant prejudices inside and outside this chamber. This bill and Senator Hanson's outdated hateful views should be comprehensively rejected by the parliament. They should both go in the bin. It's vital that every child learns the realities of the climate crisis, the truth of Australia's settler colonial past and how to have respectful relationships in the context of comprehensive sex education. 09:23 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia This is the reintroduction of a bill that Senator Hanson introduced two years ago. At that time, Labor opposed this bill, which does not support evidence based teaching. There remains a question of constitutionality and Commonwealth overreach. The version of the curriculum signed off by the former government in April this year supports evidence based teaching of literacy and numeracy. The bill that has been presented to the Senate today does not do anything to enhance the teaching or learning of the foundational skills parents want for their children. At the time of the initial introduction of the bill, the then Department of Education, Skills and Employment made a submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee as part of the committee's inquiry into the bill. The department's submission detailed the operational challenges posed if the bill were to be enacted, citing a lack of clarity about core issues, potential legal risks and overreach by the Commonwealth in directing the way that states and territories provide education to students. I quote from the conclusion of the department's submission: The broad scope of the amendments set out in the Bill, and the limited definition of key terms, presents several issues. The requirements of the Bill may present unintended consequence … The Senate committee, chaired by Senator McGrath at the time, went on to recommend that the Senate not pass the bill. The committee report says: The committee is concerned that the lack of specificity in the bill could increase the risk of legal challenges and may result in unintended consequences in areas beyond the original intent. …   …   … The committee is also concerned that the bill would result in significant overreach by the Commonwealth Government into the day-to-day operation of schools which, under constitutional arrangements, are the responsibility of the states and territories. We would prefer that the Senate spend its time doing useful work rather than reconsidering a bill that has already been found to present significant legal and operational issues. 09:27 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. I feel like I'm uniquely placed to speak to this bill. I've been a state secondary school teacher for nearly 30 years. I started out my career as a health and physical education teacher, and I also taught sexuality, human relationships and sexual education. I'm also qualified to teach secondary school science as well as humanities. When I left the department, I was a head of humanities and languages. This bill seeks to put restraints on what teachers of health and physical education, sexual education, and science and humanities can teach in their classes. It's not about balance. It's about hate and propaganda. We, as teachers, teach to the curriculum that we are provided. It is a curriculum that is grounded in truth and science. We don't cherry-pick the bits of science that we agree with or disagree with, we don't cherry-pick the bits of history that we like and are hard to face and we don't discriminate against the children who are in front of us in our classes. During this debate, I've watched people on the other side of the chamber laughing when we've spoken about education around students' gender. I invite you to come into a school and sit in front of a student who has made several attempts on their life because they have been subject to hate and transphobia. How dare you use our young people as political footballs. They are not wanting anything except to be accepted for who they are. We teach a curriculum that is grounded in human rights and science. Young people are generous of spirit, they are accepting of others and they care about the planet and their future. They are critical thinkers, they are problem-solvers and they deserve an education that is grounded in truth, justice and human rights. They deserve an education that is grounded in science. It is not teachers in schools who are attempting to indoctrinate our young people. They are professionals that work hard to give every young person in this country the positive future that they deserve. It is the people on the other side of this chamber who are seeking to indoctrinate people with their hateful and bigoted views in our schools. I will not subject young people in this country to your bigotry and hate. I will stand up every time I see it, and the Greens will call it out. This bill isn't about critical thinking; this bill is about legislating a far-right curriculum. Individual senators and parties interfering in what is taught in our schools instead of leaving it to the education experts is a very slippery slope. In the US, we see some states banning teachers from teaching about racism or sexuality, and some are even banning books. This bill is dangerous. As a teacher with over 30 years of experience in our schools, I know it is an injustice to the young people in our schools, and it is an insult to teachers. 09:31 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise to speak in relation to the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. I have occasionally taken the opportunity in this building to explore how far the capture of government departments by leftist ideology has gone. In this place, we see all the time that top health bureaucrats can't tell you what a woman is, and they can't tell you whether a man can get pregnant or not. It's actually quite surreal, coming into this place sometimes. Sadly, it's not just our health department that's controlled by radical leftism. Australia's education system is another domain in which common sense and Australian values are under attack. The education system, of course, has always been of vital importance to the so-called progressive revolutionary idea. The radical left understands that, for people to accept their absurd ideas and their ideology and be obsessed with power structures and group identity based on race, class, sex and religion, they have to indoctrinate children from an early age. To them, this is the purpose that schooling serves. This institutional capture of the education system by leftist, socialist, intersectional ideology has been devastating to the social wellbeing of this country and, I'd argue, to the lives of young people in general, who are tragically more depressed and more worried about the future than they ever have been before. As I've said before, we failed to instil in our young people a sense of meaning, purpose and understanding of their great heritage, and it's wrong that Australian children are denied the genuine opportunity to meaningfully study our past and learn from its wisdom. We've seen Australian British history virtually removed from the curriculum in recent times, and, wherever it's presented, it's done so with a sense of shame and a sense of regret. It's almost as though Australians ought to be ashamed of our great British heritage, which brought us philosophy, literature, religion, a justice system and all the other benefits that European civilisation brought to this country. Yes, of course, there is tragedy and sometimes even cruelty associated with colonialisation, but to guilt-trip Australian students into believing that their heritage is a racist one is simply cruel, unjust and untrue, and it's a terrible thing to do to our next generation. Australian students are being denied a true and balanced understanding of their history in favour of a false ideological vision designed to portray anything that is European as inherently racist and evil. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's because of our Christian heritage that we have the concept of social justice at all; it's because of our Christian heritage this notion, which ended slavery in Britain, that all people are made in the image of God regardless of their race, gender or class. When this bill states that political, historical and scientific issues must be taught in a balanced manner, I take that to mean that the task of teaching is to be done without seeking to indoctrinate our children into a revolutionary worldview. I see it as not trying to present them with this ideology but, rather, presenting them with arguments and counterarguments, teaching students to rely on reason and evidence. In other words, students are taught how, not what, to think. Of course, the views of resentful revolutionaries can't stand in such an environment because they're not true; they don't hold up when the evidence is presented or when students are actually allowed think without being guilt-tripped. It's not only the history curriculum that is affected; schools have regrettably become a vehicle for so-called sexual liberation ideology. Again, the Left understands that, to overcome the stigma associated with their views, they must normalise concepts, like gender identity, from a very young age. The reason that the Left must normalise untrue concepts as early as possible is so that they can interfere with what children would otherwise learn from their more sensible parents. The Left don't respect the authority of parents that pass on traditional commonsense beliefs to their children, nor do they view education as a journey of becoming disciplined, competent, flourishing individuals who want to contribute to their society. Instead, to them, schools have become mere training grounds for political indoctrination and the building of a voter demographic for years to come. I have collated seven different complaints from concerned parents around South Australia about what their children are learning in public and, in some cases, private Schools. There are so many more, but here are just a few: (1) 'My nine-year-old daughter attends an eastern suburbs primary school, and the other day the kids learned all about sex with boys in the class, seriously.' (2) 'My daughter was in class in year 7, in an eastern suburbs school, and a teacher played ABC's BTN, Behind the News, which always tells them to live in a state of alarm. On one occasion, the presenter suggested the kids should protest BLM; they should protest for climate change, against misogyny, and everything in between, and finish off by protesting at the dinner table, if you don't mind. Protests, activism—I have a suggestion, it's called education. That's what our taxes pay for. Do this out of school hours.' (3) 'Why should I put my kids in a place where they are taught to hate themselves and see the world through a depressing lens? I never imagined I'd pull my kids out of school. Something is very sick in our children and youth. Someone needs to do something.' (4) 'I'm a mum with a daughter in year 9 at a Christian school here in South Australia. She was in class last term, and the teacher started talking about anal sex. My daughter was so uncomfortable. Then the teacher said that the students could face each other and ask any question they'd like. How is my daughter meant to feel safe? You're teaching kids that there are no boundaries in discussions. What has this topic got to do with education? My daughter didn't feel safe. Her dignity as a young person was not respected—unacceptable.' (5) 'My daughter was in a small Catholic school. The grade 2 teacher asked the kids to draw female and male body parts. She refused to do this activity. If my daughter was at a friend's place or an uncle's, I would be horrified. I pulled my kids out of those schools.' (6) My son was asked to lie down on the ground and imagine he had breasts and female genitalia.' (7) My son was asked to write an essay imagining that he was a girl—pointless woke rubbish.' The education in this system has been taken over by radical leftist revolutionaries, like the storming of the Bastille. Your children are being indoctrinated, not educated, and parents in this country need to wake up. 09:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In today's contribution to this debate, I simply want to put the words of Georgie Stone. As a young person, her words are far more relevant to this debate than my own views. So I will deliver this speech on her behalf. She's an incredible young woman, Australian actress, writer and transgender rights advocate. She says: My name is Georgie and I am a proud 22-year-old transgender woman from Melbourne. I am here in Canberra to host a screening of my short documentary, The Dreamlife of Georgie Stone as part of a delegation of families, doctors, Transcend Australia, The Gender Centre, LGBTIQ+ Health Australia and other members of the trans community. My documentary—directed by the incredible Maya Newell—I believe is the perfect catalyst for a trip to Parliament House to invite you to not only stand in solidarity but actively support one of the most vulnerable and marginalised communities in Australia; trans kids. When I was a kid, my favourite thing to do was play with my brother Harry in the backyard or in the park near our house. Harry and I would run excitedly into the bushes, pretending we were escaping into a fantasy world and going on adventures. Sometimes we'd rope our parents into our games, or even our poor dog Roxy. As I started primary school, these adventures became even more important to me. I didn't realise how appealing a fantasy world would look, compared to the one I was living in. As a young trans girl, I grew up being taught that there was something wrong with me. From the bullying I endured at my first Primary School, to that same school refusing to support my transition, to having to go to the Family Court of Australia three times to access medical treatment. I spent years having to convince adults that I was who I said I was, and that my gender identity wasn't a fantasy, or a game. I spent years carrying other people's fears and doubts, expected to prioritise their feelings and wellbeing over my own. I spent years scared of growing up because the trans women I saw in movies and shows were always portrayed as leading tragic lives. Whenever I watched the news, I would see trans kids being used as a political football; weaponised and dehumanised to generate fear and panic in the community. All sides of politics are complicit in this. Surely, when people say "let kids be kids", this is not what they mean? There were, however, some key factors that helped me get through the darkest of times. The first, is that I had a beautiful supportive family around me. I always knew that no matter what happened at school, I could always come home and feel safe and loved. My family were a constant source of strength and love when I was struggling. In circumstances where I couldn't fight for myself, they stepped in and advocated for me. The second, was access to gender affirming care. Going to the Gender Service at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne was integral to my health and wellbeing. I met doctors who were compassionate and listened without judgment, doctors who knew how to look after me. The medical sector can be a frustrating and sometimes dangerous place for trans people, so access to specialised care is vital. Access to family support services can make all the difference for trans kids yet, these organisations are severely underfunded Australia-wide. This impacts the work they do, and limits access to the support they provide. Most organisations are run at a grassroots level by volunteers or are self-funded But we can't do this alone anymore. Without proper funding, vulnerable children are falling through the cracks. Trans youth are more likely to suffer from mental health issues, such as depression or anxiety. Trans people between 14 and 25 are 15 times more likely to attempt suicide. This is not because we are trans. We are not the problem. The problem is marginalization, lack of family support, lack of access to gender affirming healthcare and threats of violence and harassment. Which is why we need your help. An urgent boost in funding for specialist family support services will better equip them in supporting families of trans kids. The more support trans kids and their families have access to, the further we can reduce the risk factors that are contributing to the prevalence of mental health issues impacting trans youth. With family support behind me, and access to gender affirming healthcare, I was finally able to look to the future and not be afraid. As I entered my late teens, I was excited by the prospect of not just surviving, but thriving. That's all I've ever wanted. Not to be doubted or shunned. Not to be bullied or attacked. Not to be weaponised or feared. Just to live. Happily and safely. To go to school and focus on learning. To be ambitious and excited for the future. To have agency over my own life. To love, and to be loved. I think back to myself as a child, and my heart aches for her. I wish I didn't have to spend so much of my childhood fighting for my rights. I wish that when I played with my brother, it wasn't laced with escapism and longing. I wish I didn't spend so much time trying to make myself smaller for other people's comfort. The solution was really quite simple. If adults truly listened to me, and I was able to be myself, then I could have just lived my life. The trauma I've experienced in my life didn't happen because I am trans. It sprouted from other people's fear and ignorance. Every roadblock and pothole I have encountered on the road to adulthood hasn't been of my making. Trans people are not the problem. With your help, I have hope for the future that the next generation of kids won't have to fight so hard. That they can just live. The road ahead is treacherous for families of trans kids, but it doesn't have to be. Together, we can pave a safer one for those yet to come. Thank you, Georgie. 09:47 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. I have to be honest: I haven't even read the bill, and I don't really want to be talking about it. With regard to some of the comments made, I just want to— Senator Steele-John 250156 You haven't read the bill— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, senators! Senator RENNICK 283596 Can you not interject, please, Senator Steele-John. This is a chamber; there are rules and things. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senators. Senator Rennick, please continue your contribution. Senator RENNICK 283596 You haven't heard what I'm going to say yet, so could you please stop interjecting. Some of the comments in here about hatred and all of that are totally unfounded. There seems to be a big missing ingredient here in terms of transgender children, and that is the role of the parent. I've got children. If they have issues about their sexuality—and I've said this before—I will deal with it with a properly trained psychologist outside of school hours. With the greatest of respect to teachers—and I have great respect for teachers—they've got enough on their plate. They're not necessarily qualified or trained to deal with these issues. This is not just about sexuality; this is obviously about the way the child feels. And the parents need to have a role in this. When this becomes something that's dealt with in the school, without the actual parents having any oversight of what's going on, that's when this becomes an issue, because I strongly believe in the role of parents. I'm a parent myself. As said before, rightly, teachers often follow the curriculum, but the point is that a lot of this curriculum is made by bureaucrats who work in government circles. So it is a government issue. Personally, I'd be much happier if teachers didn't have the bureaucrats and the curriculum telling them what to do and if we let teachers actually deal with the students. They are the ones who know how to deal with the students the best. They know the student and the parents, so I'd rather keep the bureaucrats and the curriculum right out of it altogether. I accept the comments from over there before, because teachers are told to follow the curriculum and I don't like that. Most teachers I know genuinely have the interests of the child at heart. But I believe that education is a three-way thing. It's between the teacher, the parent and the child, and it's very important that the parent has interaction with the teacher as well as the child so that parents know what's going on. In reply to one of those other comments that we have to teach them climate science, I disagree with that remark as well. We have to teach them science, and that involves all aspects of science, including mathematics, which underpins a lot of science. We say that we teach them climate science when most of it is actually based on modelling and not based on the traditional methods of demonstrating cause and effect and quantifying cause and effect. I know myself from when I've had to dig out my own school textbooks when dealing with climate science that the science of heat is actually called thermodynamics. You deal with quantum mechanics with the photons, which come from the sun. So to teach them all about climate science and how the world's going to suddenly overheat by two degrees in the next 10 years without actually teaching them the foundations of basic science, basic mathematics et cetera, is a very dangerous thing. That's why we've got to come back to basics. I'm not having a go—maybe that's in the curriculum; I haven't read it. I will touch on one other thing. I've often been criticised by people saying that I'm in no position to talk about the Bureau of Meteorology and their record keeping—what would I know when I'm not a scientist? That goes to show how the slogan 'science' is used way too often to justify any argument. At the end of the day, taking a temperature measurement and recording that data is actually record keeping. It's got nothing to do with science. It is simply about recording the temperature, storing that and then not going back and changing it 100 years later because it doesn't suit your agenda. The Bureau of Meteorology admitted in this recent round of estimates that they've got four different datasets. They've homogenised three and they've got the raw dataset, which rarely ever gets reported anymore. Long story short, some of the comments in here today, I think, have tried to politicise the very thing that they think the bill is trying to do. Quite frankly, I want ideology out of education altogether, whether it's right wing or left wing. I don't really care. I just want children to be children, and I want the primacy of the parent to remain in their upbringing. It's the relationship between the parent, the child and the teacher that matters the most. I was an older father, and I took a couple of years off to stay at home. This is why I really believe in, ideally, having a stay-at-home parent. I know, when I used to go and pick my children up from school, I saw the teacher—not every day, but often you'd see them—at three o'clock. If you ever had an issue, you could just speak to them informally about it. You got to know the parents of other children in the class. You got to go drinking with some of them. At the end of the day, I don't want education to be something pushed down from above by the bureaucrats, many of whom do have agendas or preset ideology. I want children to be children. I want the primacy of the family and the interaction of the community both in there. I went up and I read to children. My wife still goes up. I'll give a shout-out to Story Dogs—that's where, basically, you take your dog into the classroom. A big shout-out to Rocket; she loves that. It basically helps children feel comfortable because they've got a pet there. That's that community. I should acknowledge my own father, who was chair of the kindergarten P&C for about four years and then chair of the state high school in Chinchilla for about another seven years. It's very, very important to have your community be heavily involved with education, likewise with fetes, tuckshops and all of those types of things. Of course, you've got P&C meetings. I myself, for a short time, was president of my own son's school P&C. That's why I wanted to speak today. As I said, I'm not interested in the bill—well, I am to the extent that I want the bureaucrats and government out of education and I want education to be a grassroots thing driven by the love of the teachers for their children. I know teachers become very fond of their children. I have great memories of my own teachers. I should also acknowledge my great-great-aunt, who got a Bachelor of Arts in 1920 from the University of Queensland. She went on to teach maths and physics at All Hallows' School in Brisbane and has now got the hall named after her. She taught maths and physics till age 70. My own grandmother, my great-great-aunt's niece, got a Bachelor of Arts in 1930 and went on to be a teacher. She taught before the war and after the war. My own aunt was also a teacher and became a librarian. Unbeknownst to me, when I went to the University of Queensland, I was actually a fourth-generation graduate of the University of Queensland. I only realised later on that they were all women above me who got a degree—unlike my grandfather who dropped maths in the Public Service exam in New South Wales in 1911 and went back to being a farmer. I'll just throw that in. Education is very important, but it has to be driven by the individual needs of the students, and I think that's what matters. I just want government out of our everyday lives, and I want families and communities and grassroot measures to look after our children. Every child is precious and every child is an individual. That is one of the reasons why I am very proud to be in the LNP—because it's about the dignity and worth of every individual and it's about the family values. The family is the basis of all things here. That is why I don't want any of this talk about how we're all doing this for hate and we've got political agendas. I have no political agenda. I want politics right out of raising my children. I want them to have the best childhood they can without the toxicity of politics. I even say to kids in the Young LNP: 'Don't get into the Young LNP. Do yourself a favour and go and listen to Pink Floyd's 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon, where it says: … ten years have got behind you No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun Even in your 20s, I don't want you being involved in politics. When you're in your 20s, go out and get drunk, get to understand women better, get rich and travel the world. Come back to politics when you're in your 40s and you've lived a life and you can actually throw yourself into it. That's the thing. It's this slow creep of government, whether it's in education or whatever it is. We just want government out of our lives, and we want the innocence of childhood to stay just like it is. 09:56 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia It was not my intention to contribute to this debate, not only because of the fantastic contributions already made by my colleague Senator Faruqi, a proud woman of colour, but also because of the fantastic contribution of my colleague Senator Allman-Payne, who has been a teacher for 30 years and is probably more qualified than anybody in this building to refute the absolute nonsense that has been scraped together in this piece of legislation. But I have been moved to speak to this bill as a young person and as the Greens mental health spokesperson because of the content of some of these contributions. Let's be really clear what this is. This is a bill that has been brought before this chamber by people who wish to force community debate about some of the most important issues that can be discussed right now in our community and that are being discussed right now in our community. The role of race and power in this country and the deep and urgent need to support queer kids, particularly trans kids, in school in this country—these are conversations which our community is engaged with and which our community is grappling with, expending extraordinary emotional labour educating, informing, healing and helping people to gain new views, taking incredible amounts of time and energy in the process. And these people are coming in here to exploit those conversations for their own political gain. The worst part of it, the very worst part of it, is that these people that have contributed to this conversation so far today, at their core and at their base, don't actually care about these conversations. They don't actually care about these issues; they are simply trying to get attention for themselves. That is why I have sat here so resistant to contribute to this conversation. Outside of this chamber these people, if not by the internal machinations of their own party, wouldn't be considered fit to run a lemonade stand in this country, let alone be one of its political decision-makers. Yet here they are right now. They are making these contributions, regardless of what they actually think, because they see political opportunity in it. So they brought something here dripping with hate, transphobia and racism. Let me tell you what the reality of transphobia and racism is in modern-day Australia: 63 per cent of trans kids report self-harm and 43 per cent have attempted suicide. Have you any idea what it's like to sit with a friend or to look at them across the table and see the scars on their arms; what it's like to talk with their mum as she shares with you what it is like to sit with her kid in hospital wondering whether they're going to pull through; or what it is like to sit in a room full of some of the most marginalised and courageous human beings I have ever met as they sit across from overwhelmingly old, white, rich blokes and once again, for what must feel like the millionth time, justify their right to exist as they are and to ask for equal respect and treatment before the law of the community that they occupy? To have this chamber brought low to such purposes demeans it. This should be a place in which people work to support those courageous community conversations that are happening right now. This should be a place that works to support parents talking with their kids about concepts that they might not have heard of before. It should be a place where we support communities to engage with the difficult conversations about the reality of our history and about the reality of what racism has done and is doing to communities across Australia. Instead, we get this legislative filth and this legislative hate, contributed to by MPs who admitted before they made their contribution this afternoon that they hadn't read the bill and didn't know the context, but just wanted to have a go anyway. Particularly in relation to the racist elements of this bill—and this is a deeply racist piece of legislation—what is happening here is a bunch of people who have been dominant in the decision-making spaces of Australia since its foundation as a national entity are feeling just a little bit of pressure and a little bit of pushing to not be the centre of attention all of the time and to not be the primary decision-maker in every conversation. They are terrified that children in schools might now have the opportunity to learn the truth of our history, not only in relation to race but also in relation to the role that misogyny has played in Australian history and still plays in Australian society. One of these senators gave an example. He read to the chamber what he felt was an outrageous case of wokeism. It was a teacher inviting their students to imagine what it would be like to be a different gender than they are, to engage in a basic act of empathy. These men come in here and denigrate empathy. They shame empathy. In so doing, they reveal the hollowness of their own character. You'd be able to write it off as this tiny fraction of folks, but in reality these are the ones that are willing to say it out loud. These are the ones that are willing to put it on record. The sad shame of the moment is that, in addition to these people, there are many in this place who either share their views or are unwilling when they hear them to challenge them. That is not okay. Right now in our community people are putting their bodies and minds on the line to challenge these narratives, and they have a lot less structural and institutional power than an MP. So I challenge anyone and everyone who would oppose this bill today to do so behind closed doors with your colleagues. I am under no illusion. I am very thankful that there will not be, I would imagine, a single trans person in Australia, a single queer person in Australia and very few people of colour that would watch the contributions of these people from One Nation, from the Liberal and National parties and from whatever is left of the Palmer party and see them as a point of reference. These people say, 'We'll engage in the intellectual discussions being made with these individuals.' I don't think that's very likely. What I do think likely is that these hate filled contributions make their way onto social media platforms, guided by algorithms put together by corporations whose sole purpose is to make a profit, and they end up in front of mums, dads and grandparents—particularly of trans kids. So if any of those folks are watching tonight, I want to bring you back to those statistics: 63 per cent of trans kids and trans people have self-harmed; 43 per cent have attempted suicide. If we look at prevention, a massive impact on reducing that figure is if that person has, in their life, one parent that supports them. The rates of suicide and self-harm plunge if they can identify somebody in their lives, particularly a parent, who loves them. So if you're watching these videos, if you've watched these contributions, if you're the parent to a wonderful, fantastic child who may be questioning their gender identity—who may have come fully and beautifully into a diverse gender identity, that may be experimenting in being part of those communities, embracing them with pride—then go and hug them and tell them that you love them, because that is one of the best things you can do to keep them safe and happy. Know that your child is fantastic. If you are a trans person, if you are a person of colour, if you are anybody touched by this hate filled filth, know that these views are not shared by the entirety of this chamber, and they are views which are actively—and will be, consistently—opposed by the Greens every single step of the way. 10:09 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak in support of Senator Hanson's bill, the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. I support it because I have been the president of the board of a Montessori school. I've been on the advisory board of the International Montessori Council. I agree with the primacy of the family, the tripartite role between parents, teachers and child, in understanding education and supporting it. I want to correct something, though: the previous speaker seemed to have their imagination running wild, because he said, 'These men come in here'. Well, Senator Hanson is a woman! She initiated this bill, and she's a woman! During COVID, heavy-handed lockdowns forced children into learning from home, locked away from their friends and suffering through jerky attempts to teach through a Zoom screen. Of course parents were locked up at home with their children as well, listening to their classes in a way they never could before. Many were absolutely shocked as they heard the rubbish being taught to their children for the very first time. This bill tries to steer education back to the basics, to give our children critical thinking skills and to put the power back in parents' hands to make sure that's all they're being taught. In this bill, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority would need to ensure that education provides a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues. Senator Hanson's bill would require that, where opposing views exist, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority is to ensure that the teaching profession is provided with the information, resources and support required to provide a balanced presentation to students. Wonderful! Federal funding would be conditional on states and territories requiring schools and their staff to provide a non-partisan education to students, while consulting with parents and guardians on the extent to which this has been achieved. One Nation has been trying to keep this in check, with motions condemning the teaching of critical race theory and the curriculum's erasing of history because it's said to be too 'white' or Christian. There are lots of examples showing that stronger action is needed, and I commend Senator Antic and the others who spoke here today on that very point. There is, though, for example, the Parkdale Secondary College, where students were told to stand up if they were straight, white Christian males and be humiliated by the class because they were, 'oppressors'. Without trial, they're 'oppressors'. Then there is Brauer College, where all the boys were forced to stand up at assembly and apologise to all of the girls on behalf of their gender. No specific crime was mentioned or identified for these boys to apologise for, except that they were the wrong gender. And only today One Nation New South Wales leader, Mark Latham, has drawn our attention to Mount Kuring-gai Public School. They are feeding fiction to students about history, forcing them to learn a play where Captain Cook arrives with the First Fleet in 1788 as a coloniser. For those who have forgotten history from their schooling, Captain Cook was long dead by the time of the First Fleet. This bill is necessary to stop examples like this infecting our children, to return our teaching to the basics, to restore balance to the way topics are presented and to stop our schools from being indoctrination centres. This bill puts the teaching of balanced, critical analysis and parents in the driver's seat of children's education, as they should be. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The time for this debate has expired. The Senate will now proceed to the consideration of government business. BILLS 12 BILLS Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 12

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 12 10:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's my pleasure to rise to make a contribution on behalf of the opposition on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Offshore energy infrastructure has the potential to create significant investment and job creation opportunities, as well as to contribute to Australia's future energy security. That is why, when in government, the coalition delivered on a 2019 election commitment and passed legislation to enable the development of offshore electricity energy infrastructure and to provide industry with the certainty needed to invest in Australian offshore electricity infrastructure projects. That bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, established a regulatory framework that covered all phases of development, from construction through to decommissioning of generation and transmission projects. In the 2020-21 budget, the then government invested $4.8 million into development of the legislative framework, including providing $2.9 million of seed funding for the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority and the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator to develop policy, regulations, guidelines and advice to industry. Additionally, we provided $1.9 million to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and Geoscience Australia for legal advice, marine spatial data collection, public consultation and drafting of regulations. These actions were part of the coalition's energy policy that kept the lights on and—especially important now—kept prices low. Households and businesses rely on affordable, reliable power to grow and to thrive, and, as I said, this is now more important than ever. In government we took decisive action to deliver affordable, reliable energy for Australian consumers. That means having an affordable, reliable, 24/7 supply of electricity. That plan was working. Under the coalition, electricity prices dropped to an eight-year low. When Labor was last in government, household electricity costs doubled. Labor's back in power now and electricity prices are again on the rise. Since coming to government, the Albanese government have failed Australian people on energy. In the less than six months since they came to power, the government have walked away from a promise to the Australian people to reduce household energy bills by $275. I know, from my home state of Tasmania, that that was an important promise made by the government but one that has been completely abandoned. They demonised important gas projects that, rather than competing with renewables, actually complemented them. They guillotined the Energy Security Board's capacity mechanism and took the extraordinary intervention of suspending the wholesale spot market, which shook the market and cost energy users more than $200 million. But what else would we expect from a government that doesn't understand the difference between the wholesale price of energy and the retail price of energy? The government's 2022-23 budget shows that Australians can expect a 50 per cent increase in their energy bills and a 40 per cent increase in their gas bills in 2023 alone. This could be as much as $1,092 for some households and $2,450 for some small businesses, and an increase in gas bills of $602. It is truly chilling, quite frankly, when you look at the numbers. Wholesale prices are currently $100 more in New South Wales than at the same time last year. Our expert energy bodies forecast reliability gaps and energy security risks for the next decade. Industry experts have also called the current energy transition a 'train wreck'. Alinta's CEO, Jeff Dimery, said, 'I think we're headed for failure unless things change significantly.' EnergyAustralia's CEO, Mark Collette, said, 'I am more concerned about a smooth energy transition than a year ago.' Minister Bowen told the AFR energy summit that to deliver Labor's 82 per cent Renewable Energy Target by 2030 the country will require 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines every month until the year 2030. It also will need more than 22,000 500-watt panels to be installed every day, and 60 million of these panels by 2030. Labor also plans to carpet our regions with up to 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires through prime Australian agricultural land to connect these projects to the grid. Every dollar spent on transmission has to be repaid by the consumers, ultimately through higher electricity bills. Labor promised over and over that they would reduce electricity prices by $275, as I've already said. At the launch of their $275-cut policy, Labor made their promise and then repeated it and underlined it 96 times over. On a total of 97 occasions since early December, Labor has made this promise a centrepiece of its bid for government. But Labor is putting us on a path not only to huge hikes in electricity and gas bills but also to less reliability of energy supply. Quite clearly, Labor simply can't be trusted to deliver sensible energy policy. On the issue of social licence, the opposition, when in government, understood the importance of local communities granting a social licence to build major renewables projects, including transmission lines, that may have an impact on the community, properties and the way of life of residents. Sadly, though, this government does not understand it. Senator DUNIAM 263418 It's good to have Senator Hanson-Young here! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Hanson-Young, your turn is next. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I'm looking forward to it! The coalition is deeply concerned. The government is supercharging its renewable vision with little to no regard for Australia's regional towns and communities. On the issue of community consultation, offshore energy technology, such as wind, could provide Australia with new investment and jobs growth, particularly in coastal regional communities. It is, however, important to ensure that this does not come at a cost for, or negatively impact on, those regional communities that have been identified and declared as suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure. A key part of our legislation was community consultation and, by association, gaining a social licence before an area could be declared as suitable. Careful and ongoing consultation in regulating offshore electricity infrastructure is critical given the deep connection Australians have with the ocean and existing offshore industries. It's critically important to manage the marine environment in a way that recognises all users. This includes local communities and recreational users. Our government included a minimum 60-day public consultation period on a declared zone to ensure people could have their say on any proposed area. In terms of location, another inclusion was locating turbines and other assets beyond three nautical miles from the coast in Commonwealth waters to help address the amenity concerns associated with some onshore renewable projects. On the issue of the declaration of zones, the minister has renounced the former coalition government's prioritisation of the Bass Strait for Australia's first offshore wind development. The former coalition government approved Australia's first wind exploration licence in the Bass Strait in 2019, and in 2021 it legislated a framework to unlock investment while ensuring coastal communities and sea users' rights were respected. It's essential that any development has strong community support, and I encourage all potential project developers to put in the groundwork needed to secure that support. While consultation is welcome, Mr Bowen still has no plan to support investment in the reliable generation needed to keep the lights on and, importantly, to get prices down. That's why this government has already abandoned its election promise to cut household power bills by that magic number of $275 by the end of its first term. The bill makes a number of minor amendments to the act. While the amendments are mostly noncontroversial, and the coalition supports the ongoing development of Australia's offshore wind industry, a notable amendment is that the minister, rather than the regulator, will be given the power to decide what forms and amounts of financial security licence holders must provide and when these obligations must cease under regulations. The coalition believes the proposed amendment that allows the minister, rather than the regulator, to make decisions in relation to matters relating to the financial security of licence holders risks emboldening the government's plan to accelerate the rollout of renewable projects without sufficient community consultation or, importantly, without a social licence and therefore will mean easier terms for licence holders than otherwise would be granted under an independent authority. This is a matter that the coalition will be paying close attention to. 10:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak in favour of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The Greens will be supporting this bill put forward by the government because it is an important step forward to ensure that we can transition to a cleaner, greener economy and to ensure that we are investing all of our efforts in the production of renewable energy. But let me mention at the outset the sheer hypocrisy from the other side. We have just heard the representative from Mr Dutton's side of government, the opposition, the Liberal Party, trying to criticise someone else when it comes to having an energy policy in this country. His mob were in charge for nearly a decade, and we had chop and change, chop and change, chop and change the whole way through on energy policy. Do you want to know why Australians' electricity bills are so damn high right now? It is because of the incompetence of those who were in charge for the last nine years. They did nothing to reduce carbon pollution, they did nothing to reduce people's power bills and, in fact, what they did do was stand in the way and make it harder and harder for industry to develop and deliver what we know is the cheapest form of energy. We know that new renewable projects deliver cheaper power for everyone because the facts are absolutely clear and the numbers don't lie. That is why this bill is important—in fact, it is absolutely essential. It's also important because, alongside this piece of legislation to establish more offshore wind power in Australia, is the fact that the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has today released the State of the Climate 2022 report. We should not be surprised by the statistics and the findings in this report, but we should be alarmed. Our climate is in absolute crisis. Climate change is here—it is happening, we are living with it. It is devastating our homes and our livelihoods, and it is putting people's lives at risks. It is already wreaking havoc on life as we know it here in Australia. The State of the Climate report shows that we've already increased temperatures here in Australia by an average of 1.47 degrees. We have a global effort designed to keep temperature increases at 1.5 degrees globally, and already Australia is nearly at that level. It is having a devastating impact on our environment, our communities and our economy. The State of the Climate 2022 report shows that we are going to have more extreme weather. There are going to be more damaging floods, there are going to be worsening droughts and there is going to be bushfire intensity that we have never seen before. The climate has changed, and we have to face up to the reality that we have to drastically reduce pollution if we are to try to hold back the very worst changes, which are yet to come. Our oceans are in crisis. The State of the Climate 2022 report shows that our oceans, particularly our reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef, are some of the most vulnerable reefs in the world. The bleaching events that are devastating the Great Barrier Reef are making it harder and harder for the reef to recover because of the frequency of these events, and these events are only going to get worse. Our climate is in crisis, and rather than bickering from the other side about how quickly or slowly we should move from fossil fuels to renewables, we just have to get on with it. Our climate is in crisis, and we have to get off the gas and get off the coal. That is the truth, and we do that by investing in renewable energy. We do that by investing in a smart grid. We do that by making sure that we transition our entire economy to one that is based on ensuring a clean, green outcome. This particular bill is largely technical in the aspects of creating an offshore wind industry in Australia, but it is essential for Australia to get off fossil fuels and to make sure we tackle climate pollution. We won't be able to build the zero-emissions export economy for Australia that we know we need without offshore wind. It is essential. The scale and potential for clean energy growth is massive, so while we are dealing with this climate crisis, which is already devastating homes and livelihoods, we also have a massive opportunity if we are willing to take it with both hands. For instance, the Star of the South project proposed for South Gippsland in Victoria will be big enough to replace the Yallourn brown coal fired power station, the dirtiest power station in the country. Let's get on with it, let's do it—in fact, it should have been done some time in the last decade. But now is not the time to delay. These offshore wind projects will power Australia's new industries, and that's why Portland in Victoria, the Hunter in Newcastle and Gladstone in Queensland are all target sites. They can transform existing deepwater port regions into export green steel, hydrogen, ammonia and fertilisers that have zero gas in them. That is essential for transforming our entire economy, for decarbonising our economy. And if we don't do it, climate change is only going to get worse—the climate crisis will become more and more devastating. So let's grab with both hands the opportunity to transform our economy, to get more investment in Australia and to reduce the pollution that is harming our environment. It is important, with all of these new industries, that we tread carefully to ensure that the public is brought along. There are already signs of concern about some of the proposals in Gippsland impacting on existing treasures like Wilsons Promontory. I remember camping at the Wilsons Promontory campgrounds as a kid over summer. It is a stunningly beautiful area and we need to protect it. We need to balance these areas. We need to make sure we are protecting nature while at the same time investing in the transformation of the decarbonisation that we need. And you can do that: you can talk to community, you can respect local traditional owners and you can make sure you bring people along, but you do it with transparency, you do it with clarity and you do it with purpose. You don't do it with the raw politics that we've seen from the Liberal and National parties for the last nine years. We will be keeping a close eye on the projects as they come through to make sure the communities are being consulted and the environment is being looked after. We want to make sure that not only are we getting a net gain on an investment in renewables, cheaper power prices for Australians, and an export industry that we can be proud of and that can power our national economy, but also that we're still protecting the areas that are so beautiful and that make Australia the great country that it is. We are worried about the impact on migratory birds, and we'll be making sure that the EPBC legislation—that is, the environment laws of this country—is strong enough to protect migratory birds and our endangered animals and wildlife as these projects are being discussed. You can do these things in harmony if you do it right, with transparency and with purpose. This bill is an important step forward. I'm not going to stand here in this place today and hear the sheer hypocrisy from the other side, who have done nothing to protect the environment, nothing to reduce pollution and nothing to reduce power bills. If they want to step up to the plate now and work with all sides of the parliament to make sure we do get a proper decarbonisation agenda running in this country that balances renewable energy, care for the environment and respect of the community, then okay, I'll start listening to them. But at this point it is sheer politics. It's as if the Liberal and National parties think the rest of us have amnesia. Well, we don't. When you read the State of the climate report, it is shocking that we are at a point where we are nearly seeing 1.5 degrees warming in this country, yet we still have the Leader of the Opposition arguing against proper targets to reduce pollution, against global ambition to tackle climate change and, earlier this week, against those in the Pacific being given some assistance to deal with the loss and damage caused by climate change. If this is the position and the direction that the Liberal and National parties are going to continue down, they'll lose more seats at the next election. In my home state, I know South Australians are deeply worried about the impact that climate change is having right now. They are worried about what happens when the next drought hits. They are worried about the state of the Murray-Darling Basin. They are worried that the head of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority said only yesterday that there would be 30 per cent less water in the Murray-Darling Basin because of climate change. South Australians know that we have to take this issue seriously, and we cannot delay it any further. When they hear members of the Liberal Party saying that it can still just get kicked down the road, see them playing grubby politics over climate change or hear the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, suggest that our friends in the Pacific can simply drown on their own without the support and help of Australia in terms of a global effort to combat climate change and to help fund a loss and damage contribution, I wonder how many Liberal members in South Australia will continue to hold their seats. The Liberal Party have totally missed the message from this election. Australians voted in huge numbers in this election for climate action—more than ever before—and you never hear a peep out of the Liberal-National coalition since then about what they are doing to change their policies to reflect the will of the Australian people. All you hear is petty politics, gutter politics and an excuse that it was somebody else's fault. They were in charge for 10 years, and they did nothing. Now we have the worst State of the Climate report that this country has ever seen because our environment and our climate is in crisis. So I'm glad they're finally voting for something to help reduce carbon pollution, but, boy oh boy, it has taken them a long bloody time to get here. 10:36 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise to also support the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, strangely enough. We've heard a lot of conversation in some contributions this morning, so let me be clear about what this bill is actually going to do. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to ensure that, following the recent commencement of the Offshore Electricity Act, the goods and vessels that enter or exit the coast in relation to offshore electricity infrastructure are appropriately regulated. The bill is also amending the OEI Act to primarily accommodate a recent change in the Administrative Arrangement Orders, which might otherwise impact the powers and identity of the Offshore Infrastructure Registrar. While that doesn't sound like the sexiest paragraph in the universe, it actually is a significant step towards structural change. As Senator Hanson-Young was referring to previously, we have seen, over a significant period of time, close to a decade, challenges in this area and a lack of action. So we are making this change to ensure that we can build this industry that we know has the opportunity to be quite transformational. It is quite a transformational piece of work. We've seen a lot of activity across Europe, and now the United States are also investing very heavily in offshore wind. These changes allow us to invest in that industry and to open up the opportunity for the building of those wind farms offshore to build up our electricity grid. Our commitment to 82 per cent renewables in electricity by 2030 is a solid commitment that is going to make a difference, and this kind of change will open up this industry to new jobs, to new investment and to a greener, cleaner future, a future where we know that there are better jobs and that this is the pathway we need to take not just for ourselves in Australia but as a global citizen addressing issues of climate change. We cannot keep acting the way we've been acting, but we can do it by building new opportunities, new industries and new jobs. That is exactly what this kind of legislation will open up opportunities for. Offshore wind, like I said, is very popular across Europe and is building significantly year on year. It is a stronger, more consistent wind source and is more abundant than onshore wind. It also deals with a lot of the issues that people have raised regarding onshore farms, which absolutely have a place and a role to play, but the offshore wind farms provide, as I say, an extra, stronger and more consistent source of electricity that we'll be able to pump into the grid, the new grid, the grid that we're upgrading and making more efficient so that we can provide cheaper, cleaner electricity to households across Australia while also boosting jobs and building new industries that we can be proud of. We can transfer our economy. We can transform our energy system. We can move towards a clean energy future. We can embrace the opportunities that our natural environment has, and we can work, as Senator Hanson-Young pointed out, in partnership with anybody who wants to play and in partnership with our environment. We can make a better future, and this bill takes us part of the way there. Like my colleague, Senator Hanson-Young, said, we will be delighted to work more closely with the opposition for a stronger and cleaner energy future. We're looking forward to that. Senator GROGAN 296331 Senator Duniam, thank you very much. And with that I will commend the bill to the Senate. 10:41 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak on Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Like many things in this place, it is a great piece of coalition legislation that the out-of-touch Labor senators opposite want to transform into something that hurts communities more than helps. Don't get me wrong: nobody is a bigger supporter of offshore renewable electricity than myself. Unlike the Prime Minister, I went to COP27 in Egypt last week, where I heard firsthand how offshore wind will be one of the many technologies required for Australia's and other countries' transition to a net zero economy. And I welcome Minister Bowen's move to join the Global Alliance for Offshore Wind, which aims to see 380 gigawatts of offshore infrastructure built around the world by 2030. Right now, there are only 60 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity around the world. Of those 60 gigawatts, not one is produced in Australia. However, in the last parliament we did enable the legislation for that to commence. Despite being a country that boasts of our bountiful beaches, with one of the largest shorelines in the world, there is not one offshore wind project in our whole country, and the research about this is conclusive: we have an exceptionally strong capacity for offshore wind, especially in my home state of Victoria, where the first project is likely to be built. According to recent studies, the technical offshore wind resource was estimated to be 2,233 gigawatts, an amount far in excess of current and projected electricity demand in Australia. If we exploited just two per cent of Australia's technical offshore wind resource, we would provide nearly double the entire generation capacity currently in the NEM, according to leading experts. Offshore energy infrastructure has the potential to create significant investment and job-creation opportunities, contributing to Australia's future energy security, and is key to our path to becoming a country that reaches net zero emissions by 2050. More importantly, it doesn't disrupt communities and destroy usable agricultural land or the natural environment. That is why, when in government, the coalition delivered on a 2019 election commitment and passed legislation to enable the development of offshore electricity infrastructure and provide the industry with the certainty needed to invest in offshore energy infrastructure projects. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 established a regulatory framework that intended to support the development of this sector in Commonwealth waters. It established a regulatory framework to enable the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area. The bill included the key offshore electricity infrastructure instruments like offshore wind farms, as well as tidal, wave, rain, solar and geothermal power generation, as well as the necessary transmission facilities to bring it ashore. In the 2020-21 budget the former coalition government invested $4.8 million to develop the legislative framework, which included $2.9 million as seed funding for the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, and the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator to develop policy, regulations, guidelines and industry advice, as well as $1.9 billion to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and Geoscience Australia for legal advice, marine spatial data collection, public consultation and drafting of regulations. This action was part of the coalition's energy policy that kept the lights on and the prices low. Households and businesses rely on affordable, reliable power to grow and thrive. In government we took decisive action to deliver affordable, reliable energy for Australian consumers. By that we mean having an affordable, reliable, 24/7, 365-day supply of electricity. And, I might say, our plan was working. Under the Morrison government renewable energy generation grew by 360 per cent in both wind and solar. We also reduced annual carbon emissions by 77 million tonnes. And power prices were going down. Of course, we're seeing now prices going up. It's no surprise, because power prices always go up under Labor governments. Let's not forget that in the last disastrous six years of Labor government power prices doubled and went up each and every year. Since coming to power, Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen have failed the Australian people on energy. In less than six months of coming into power the government has walked away from its election promise to the Australian people to reduce household energy bills by $275. Those opposite might have forgotten, but I remind them that this wasn't a once off promise. The Prime Minister promised Australians 97 times before the election that he would reduce power bills by $235 a year. But budget estimates show power prices rising by 56 per cent—a price that many Australian businesses and families simply will not be able to afford. These numbers aren't just statistics. The increases in energy prices and gas prices have been estimated to cost $1,092 for some households and $2,450 for small businesses, with increase in gas bills of $602. They have been spending their time in government demonising important gas projects. Rather than competing with renewables, complement them. Let's not forget taking the extraordinary intervention of suspending the wholesale electricity spot market, which shook the market to its core and cost energy users more than $200 million. With all of these massive failures in such a short amount of time, it would appear the only truthful thing the Prime Minister has said is that his government has hit the ground running. But don't just take my word for it. Energy experts across Australia are calling the Albanese government's energy transition a train wreck. Alinta CEO Jeff Dimery said, 'I think where headed for failure unless things change significantly.' EnergyAustralia's CEO Mark Collette said, 'I am more concerned about a smooth energy transition than a year ago.' Offshore energy technologies such as wind could provide Australia with new investment and job growth, particularly in coastal regional communities. It is, however, more important to ensure this does not come at a cost or negatively impact those regional communities that have been identified and declared as suitable for offshore energy infrastructure. A key part of our legislation was community consultation and, by association, gaining a social licence for these projects before an area can be declared as suitable. On the road to net zero we need to be working with our communities, not working against them, if we want to meet our targets. Careful and ongoing consultation and regulating offshore infrastructure is critical, given the deep connection Australians have with the ocean and existing offshore industries. It is critically important to manage the marine environment in a way that recognises all users. This includes local communities and recreational users. The coalition government included a minimum 60-day public consultation period on a declared zone, to ensure people can have their say on the proposed area. Another inclusion was locating turbines and other assets beyond three nautical miles from the coast, to help address the amenity concerns associated with some onshore renewable projects—that is, not being an eyesore in our great environment. It is critical to the maintenance of our environmental and cultural capital that the wind turbines we build aren't going to impact peoples' day-to-day lives. This is one of the key benefits of offshore wind—for lack of a better word, it's 'out of sight and out of mind'. Constituents of the sunlit undulating hills of beautiful regional Australia are right to worry when they hear of wind energy projects going up in their backyard. As much as they are important for our energy transition, they can be very ugly. This brings me back to my original statement, about working with our communities—not working against them. The government is also intent on spending billions of dollars on its Rewiring the Nation project. They should, however, be focused on building solar projects closer to where the energy is needed, rather than spending billions on changing the powerlines just to get a product to market. The government is intending to make a few amendments, most of which are uncontroversial and don't greatly affect the core intention of our previous bill—except for one important one. The government wants it to be the power of the minister, not the regulator, to decide what forms and amount of financial security licence holders must provide and when these obligations must cease under regulations. This move leaves the process wide open for corruption. Our biggest wind energy companies in Australia are also some of the biggest donors in the country. When onshore wind and power projects often cost billions of dollars, there is the potential for misdealings. I won't try and impugn the intentions of any minister or company, but, with such lucrative projects going up, the coalition has always believed that the power to decide the levels of financial security that licence holders need should be in the hands of independent regulators not the partisan and political hands of the minister. I remember all the lectures we got from the other side on integrity when we were in government, so it's strange to see that they're walking back from that now. Furthermore, when it comes to building our largest energy projects, it's important that the government gains social licence from the community they plan to build it in. Simply put, these projects will be going up in backyards, in communities, and they deserve a say in how they are built, where they are built and the safety precautions that need to be put in place. An independent regulator would ensure that communities have a say in these projects and that they are truly listened to. It would prevent a minister from firing off a project right before a by-election or delaying a project until it was politically advantageous to release it. What matters is the energy needs of the country and the local needs of the community. That's what matters: making sure that we are working with our communities, not working against them. 10:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 before us deals with two amendments to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act, which was passed in this chamber in 2021. The Greens supported that legislation and the principle of offshore wind energy, with caveats. I'll deal with those two amendments in a second, but I'll just provide the very important background to this legislation today, which is designed to help grease the wheels of this legislation and to develop an offshore electricity industry in this country. It's very important that we transition rapidly to 100 per cent renewables, not just in Australia but all around the world. Of course, wind is going to play a major role in that—wind on the ocean, wind onshore is going to be a critical component of our grid going forward. But I will say that the Greens do have caveats on where we put wind farms, including in the ocean. These things have to be done in the right way. There's no doubt at all that wind farms do have some environmental impacts, with their footprints, for example, and the recyclability of their products being things that we should consider right here and right now. But I want to talk about the context of that rapid transition to renewables, because I think there are some times in your life and in your career where you might look back on a moment and it hits you between the eyes. You say, 'Wow! Did that really happen? What did we do about it? What was my role in changing that?' I think that the release of the State of the climate 2022 report today by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology is going to be one of those moments in my life and also in the lives of a lot of people. It shows that we're in a deepening climate emergency and that things couldn't be any more serious. The reason why I think today is so significant is because I've been part of a political movement which is about 50 years old and which got people into parliament to fight for the environment and a whole range of social justice and equity issues. One of the key things that we've been pushing for is to try to keep global warming to 1½ degrees. That's in line with international protocol: the Paris Agreement. Today, in the State of the climate 2022 report, we hear that in Australia we're already at 1.4 degrees of warming above levels from 1910. The Paris Agreement is trying to limit warming across the entire planet to 1.5 degrees, based on preindustrial levels. But here in Australia we're almost at that level and it's 2022—not 2050 or 2100. It's 2022, and we're nearly at 1.5 degrees of warming on this continent. When we look at what's happening in our backyard, we've had three La Nina events in a row and two negative Indian Ocean dipoles in a row. That has never been recorded before. We've had some of the worst bushfires this country has ever seen in the last couple of years and just about every temperature record you could think of has been broken. We've had marine heatwaves and the loss of biodiversity in places like the Great Barrier Reef and off the coast of my beautiful state of Tasmania, where we have lost most of our giant kelp forests—critical habitat for our fisheries. And I could go on: droughts, pestilence and disruption to our supply chains in our agricultural communities. These things are all happening at 1.4 degrees of warming. I just want to step through a couple of quick things that the state of the environment report said today, and there are some great articles that I recommend people read, including in both the Guardian and the Age today. It said that sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate; day- and night-time temperatures are rising; we're seeing record downpours, or deluges, in our rainfall patterns; glaciers in the west Antarctic are destabilised; glaciers and ice around the planet is melting; in our oceans we're seeing longer and more frequent heatwaves; and the acidification of our oceans by carbon dioxide is happening 10 times faster than at any time in our recorded history. We're seeing more heat, more droughts and more intense rainfalls. What about the outlook? What do we know about the outlook from this report? Expect more misery, more suffering, more loss of biodiversity and more economic damage if we don't act. It was good to hear the government today in these reports—Mr Husic in the other place, and our environment minister, Ms Plibersek, in the other place—talk about taking climate action. But talk is cheap. What about the action that this government and previous governments have taken? Well, we've seen one piece of legislation since this new parliament has convened, to set a 43 per cent emissions reduction target that the science tells us will limit warming to two degrees. An analysis by think tank Climate Analytics earlier this year said the government's commitment to cut emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 found it was consistent with two degrees of warming. Mr Bowen, at COP27 in Egypt, specifically said that the difference between 1.5 and 1.7 degrees of warming for the planet was enormous and implored other nations to up their efforts to cut emissions. Mr Bowen also said: If we're not trying to keep to 1.5 C, then what are we here for? I would like to know why we only have legislation and ambition in this country to cut emissions that equate to two degrees of warming. You can understand why Mr Albanese yesterday, when he went to visit flood affected communities in New South Wales, was asked where he was and why he wasn't there earlier, supporting them in their darkest hour. And he said, 'I was overseas at international meetings.' You can see why people are getting sick and tired of talkfests. The Paris protocol was set well over a decade ago. Why are we nearly exceeding that temperature in 2022 when we were supposed to be able to hold this planet's warming across all countries to 1.5 degrees by 2050? We're there nearly 30 years early. It's because we talk, and we don't act. We know we need to cut emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 to have any chance globally of meeting these targets. What is half a degree, you may ask? This is where I think it gets lost in the mire. If we're globally at one degree or 1.2 degrees, a two degrees warming is a hundred per cent increase. It's a 100 per cent increase of trapped heat in our atmosphere. Somehow, we think 1.5 degrees warming, which is a 50 per cent increase, is a good thing. Well, it's not. You can look at a whole range of scientific information. It was interesting that Mr Husic was quoted in the papers this morning as saying, 'We listen to the science, and we act.' Well, the science tells us that the difference between 1½ and two degrees—for coral reefs, for example—is that, if we limit warming in our oceans and around the planet to 1½ degrees, we're going to see an expected 70 to 90 per cent decline in our coral reefs. If we limit warming to two degrees, expect to see a 99 per cent decline in the Great Barrier Reef and in the world's coral reefs. It couldn't be any more serious. That is the backdrop to the legislation that we are debating today to facilitate offshore renewable energy and an offshore electricity industry. We support the rapid transition to renewables. We support stopping all new fossil fuel projects and phasing out fossil fuels. It's estimated we have around 3,000 gigatonnes of fossil fuels already discovered on this planet, and, if we are to meet our carbon budget for Paris, we can only extract 500 of those gigatonnes in the next 50 years. And yet we're still out exploring for more oil and gas in our oceans. We are still giving public money to open up new fossil fuel projects in this country at the same time as our leaders are overseas talking about keeping global warming to 1½ degrees. It is bullshit, absolute and utter bullshit! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Whish-Wilson, I'd appreciate it if you'd use parliamentary language. There are other ways you could use to express your passion. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I appreciate that, but as you know Odgers says it's about the context of how you use language. I think at this time in history I'm allowed to be bloody angry, like many other people around this planet, with the lack of action from people, which is what we have in this chamber from leaders and politicians. One thing that we know is good for the environment is recycling, and the government is talking a big game on recycling. I note that recently Minister Plibersek talked about putting the solar panel industry on a pathway of action on recycling. Today we have an opportunity before us to also talk about recycling in the offshore renewable energy industry because everything we produce should be produced for its end of life. We're seeing a number of turbines around this country coming to the end of their lives that will likely be sent to landfill, if we don't do something about it. Of course, we should be stipulating that in legislation today—and I would like to have moved substantive amendments to do this, but I understand the politics of this week and next week mean we will be getting through a lot of legislation, so I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I ask you to move it now. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I move Greens amendment on sheet 1751: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) is of the opinion that: (i) building a circular economy is a key component of climate action, (ii) decommissioning of infrastructure must be undertaken in a way that is environmentally sustainable, and (iii) the technology to recycle and reuse the components of wind turbines exists now; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) develop robust regulations for the safe and sustainable decommissioning of offshore wind turbine infrastructure, and (ii) ensure that future regulations prevent the decommissioning of wind turbine infrastructure to landfill". This amendment at least puts some structure around the government working with the offshore electricity industry to make sure that the infrastructure in our oceans is properly recycled. It is especially to ensure that the blades of these wind turbines, which are made from a number of composite materials, aren't sent to landfill but are designed for their end of life. There are companies like Siemens in Germany that are producing fully recyclable wind turbine blades. The impacts of the renewable energy industry, whether it's on wildlife, biodiversity, communities or climate action, are part of the solution to tackle this rapid transition to zero emissions that we need. But these industries also need to take their environmental responsibility seriously—in fact, I think they should take it more seriously than other industries because they are setting an example for what we need to be doing. The Greens's amendment is fairly simple and pretty straightforward. I would hope that many of the renewable energy companies out there would agree with the Greens. I think most of my fellow senators would agree that now is the time to be doing this, especially as we are debating a bill in which one of the amendments to the Customs Act looks at antidumping and how we issue licences and the conditions attached to those licences associated with operating in these new areas that we're opening up in our oceans. I have a very strong personal view, as does my party, that we should be leading, when we pass this type of legislation, on building a circular economy. I would like to see the offshore renewable energy electricity industry as a shining light that is leading on that. They could show that they are thinking about a circular economy, they are thinking about a zero-waste economy, they are thinking about designing their products for the end of their life and they are setting an example for so many other industries that also need to do this. We will no doubt vote on this amendment, and the Greens will be supporting this legislation today. 11:09 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I am proud to rise to support this piece of legislation, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I do so as a former minister for resources who had some involvement in kicking off the process which has led us to this piece of legislation. This is largely a bill that has been reintroduced from the previous parliament. The previous government had been working for a number of years on updating our regulatory framework to specifically cover the investment and creation of offshore wind turbines. Until we pass this legislation, there is a bit of a gap in exactly where and how any investment in offshore wind would be regulated. We already do have significant regulatory arrangements in place for offshore oil and gas developments. As the minister for resources, I was responsible for those. They didn't specifically cater for offshore wind. There was generic environmental legislation that offshore wind investments could potentially come under. Despite what you might read in reports, I am not against wind or solar energy. I am more than happy to support investments in all types of energy. I just believe in energy abundance. We should have lots of different types of energy. We should have wind. We should have solar. We should have coal. We should have gas. And, yes, we should have nuclear, too. It's only by having lots of energy that we will bring energy prices down, protect our heritage as a manufacturing nation and have a future for that manufacturing industry, too. So I am more than happy to support this bill which would provide a stable, proper and consistent regulatory framework for offshore wind investments. Of course, as Senator Whish-Wilson has expressed, it's very important that they are regulated. Marine environments are largely pristine and need to be protected. There needs to be significant regulation on any large-scale investment in our marine areas. Those seeking to build offshore wind turbines are probably going to have an environmental effect on our marine areas greater than the oil and gas industry. We are told—and I am yet to be convinced that we will necessarily see all of these investments—by the government that there are investments in the Gippsland and investments right across our ocean territories. Given the low intensity of renewable energy and wind in particular, there will need to be more turbines than there are oil and gas platforms around our country. Again, don't believe what you read. The environmental performance of our oil and gas industry has been absolutely stellar. There have been very few and limited environmental issues in our marine environment from those investments. But these potentially larger footprint of investments of wind turbines will create risk. They will potentially create risk to marine wildlife, especially through their construction and drilling. That will potentially have an impact on seafood stocks. I was just talking to someone from the fishing industry the other day. They are very concerned about the potential for fishing vessels to be locked out of large areas around wind turbines. Again, given their larger footprint, that would have a much bigger impact than our oil and gas infrastructure does on our fishing industry. So all of those things have to be taken into account. I have great confidence, though, in our regulators—the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority and the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator. NOPSEMA and NOPTA are both exemplars of our Public Service in this country. They have very committed individuals who I had the great privilege of working with as the minister for resources. They do a great job in regulating our oil and gas sector. They are a large reason why we have had that great and strong environmental performance on oil and gas. I am sure they will do an excellent job under this new regulatory framework, once this legislation is passed, to regulate the offshore wind industry. It was the former government that provided funding to both NOPSEMA and NOPTA and their responsible department—it was then the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources—to create this framework and to get geared up to do this. I am glad that the new government is progressing these initiatives and continuing with the great work they have done. I would hope that one day we will have investments in offshore wind here. I don't know if the grand plans that are being suggested will be realised. There are a lot of questions on the rigor of the CSIRO's latest GenCost report which I think will be exposed in the months ahead, especially in regard to nuclear. But, be that as it may, even the CSIRO, who are fairly pro on renewables, put the cost of offshore wind at around $150 a megawatt hour. That is at least 50 per cent higher than coal, solar and onshore wind in their cost models. So that's a lot higher, and, given the high prices we see at the moment, obviously we'd like to attract investment into sources of energy that can lower the cost—lower the cost for families and especially lower that cost for our manufacturers. Offshore wind probably doesn't promise that. We've got to be real here with people. We've got to stop telling them fairytales. Offshore wind is a very expensive type of power—especially when you add on the fact that, on top of that $150, of course it's not available all the time. You've got to back it up—you've got to 'firm' it, in the jargon of the energy industry. And so the actual delivered cost—the cost to deliver 24/7 power with some component from offshore wind—would be much, much higher. It'd be probably at least in the order of $200 a megawatt-hour, or possibly more. Compare that to nuclear. And I'll say: the CSIRO report has a lot of problems with nuclear, because, No. 1, it only looks at small modular reactors, which haven't been commercially deployed yet. I'm not sure why the CSIRO won't, or is unwilling to, publish figures for light-water nuclear reactors that are commercially available and used right around the world. In fact, we're only the settled continent in the world without nuclear energy; it's us and the penguins in Antarctica that are holding out against nuclear energy. Consistently, you get estimates, from around the world, of nuclear energy being delivered below that $150 a megawatt-hour. In some countries in Scandinavia and Asia, it's much lower than that—lower than $100 a megawatt-hour. Other countries in Western Europe have struggled recently with their cost of nuclear energy. But, if you want zero emissions, if you want to get to this mythical net-zero land, and you want cheaper power, why wouldn't you consider nuclear power? Why don't we have some legislation here that, alongside this offshore wind bill, actually legalises nuclear? That's given me an idea: perhaps I should draft some amendments to put, to legalise nuclear energy in this bill! But I won't hold up the good work of those public servants. I will let this through. There is other legislation—if I could foreshadow something on the Notice Paper—that is considering that particular effort. As I say, what we need to do here, most importantly, is to tell the truth to the Australian people. This government, in particular, has already been caught lying to the Australian people. They've already been caught breaking a massive political promise—only six months ago, suggesting that their renewable energy plan, which included offshore wind, would save Australians $275 a year on their power bills. That was what they put to the Australian people. Indeed, their leader, Anthony Albanese, promised that to the Australian people 97 times before the last election. We don't hear the words 'two hundred and seventy-five' from this government anymore. They won't repeat that promise. They've walked away from it. They walked away from it within weeks of being elected. They just dropped it as if no-one would remember. But I don't think the Australian people are mugs. I do think they will remember that they were promised—they were promised; there were no ifs and buts; there were no caveats—that, by voting for the Labor Party on 21 May this year, they would get a $275 saving on their power bill. And they haven't got what they were promised. There are no refunds on a newly elected government, but there is another election coming up. And I don't think the Australian people will forget that lightly. Now, the reason the Labor Party have not been able to deliver on their promise is that we are investing too much in renewable energy. You can't believe their promises, but if you were to believe what the Labor Party say about our energy system, they walk around saying: 'The problem is that terrible, dastardly former coalition government did not invest in renewable energy enough.' They say: we did not invest in it enough; we didn't do enough; we had 10 years of no action. Well, obviously, the Labor Party doesn't read the Australian Energy Market Operator's reports, and obviously they do not get across the detail of what has been happening in our energy market, because Australia has been investing in solar and wind at a record rate, well above any other country in the world—well above. And those are not my figures. If you go to the last Australian Energy Market Operator's quarterly report, they say that Australia has invested in solar and wind at a rate four times higher, per person, than North America or Europe—higher than any other country in the world. And four times higher, by the way—not just a little bit higher; not just marginally above. We have been installing solar and wind energy at a rate four times the rate in other developed countries in the world. Now, what has that delivered us? What has that delivered to the Australian people? It has delivered us skyrocketing energy prices. It has delivered crushing power bill increases for Australian families who, this Christmas, are facing a very difficult decision about how many toys to buy the kids to put under the Christmas tree, because they have to pay for higher power bills. That's what it has delivered. That is the clear and direct evidence. In fact, it's also the evidence in countries overseas. Every other country that has gone down this path of investing in unreliable, weather-dependent energy ends up with higher power bills. Every country in Europe that has done it—Germany, Denmark and every other country that's done it—has ended up with higher power prices. We are no different; we're just doing it a little bit faster than those other countries right now. It's about time we got off that track and invested in reliable power so that Australian families do not get crushed by their higher energy bills. I do give thanks today to the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, who is consistent with what I'm saying: we've got to tell the truth; we've got to be upfront with people. As hard and painful as that might be, our job is to do that. I've been very critical of Dr Philip Lowe's management of monetary policy but I give credit to him for, overnight, belling the cat on our energy crisis. He said plainly yesterday, in a speech to CEDA, that investing more in green energy will lead to higher power bills. That's what he said. I just hope—and it's about time—that the Australian Labor Party and the federal government will be as upfront and honest with the Australian people as Philip Lowe had the courage to be yesterday, because right now they are telling us fairytales. You have to make choices and trade-offs in life, and if you invest in a power system that is less dependent, less reliable and costs billions of dollars you are going to get higher power prices as a result. The Australian Labor Party wants to spend $60-odd billion on transmission lines and untold amounts on wind and solar. If you invest all those billions of dollars in new infrastructure and get exactly the same energy system we had before, which is what they're proposing—we're not going to get a better electricity system that is going to make our fridges colder and our factories run more efficiently; if everything works out, it's going to be exactly the same as before but we'll have spent tens of billions of dollars getting there—that means you're going to be less productive. That means you're going to have higher prices and higher costs. That's the way business works. If a business spends billions and billions of dollars on new equipment, new gear and new technologies and gets exactly the same output as it did before, it's going to make less money. Its profits are going to go down. That's what's going to happen to our country if we continue on this path. We are spending billions and billions of dollars and not getting a better energy system in return. We're going to shut down our existing coal-fired power plants early, when they could still be running—they've been invested in; their costs have been sunk—and we're going to replace them at a very, very high cost. That is going to cost our economy and our society dearly. We have to realise right now that the world is waking up to this fraud of an idea that we can run an industrial economy on renewable energy alone. We saw just last week, as Senator Whish-Wilson mentioned, the complete failure of COP27. Surprise, surprise! The rest of the world is not signing up to phase down fossil fuels. In Egypt there was no agreement to do that. People went there—Chris Bowen went over there—thinking this would happen. The rest of the world didn't agree. They didn't agree because they can see what's happening in Europe right now. They look at those countries that have become dependent on solar and wind, like Germany, which has been at the forefront of this—they call it the Energiewende, the green energy scam—and see the disaster that is Germany now. There's another German word that we should all learn right now. It's 'Dunkelflaute', which means 'the dark doldrums'. The Germans have a word for everything, and they've now got a word for the terrible consequences of an obsession with renewable energy. Dunkelflaute means 'the dark doldrums'. It refers to the periods in Germany when there is no wind for weeks at a time, and at that time they've got no power, no energy. Germany are lucky in that they can import power from the nuclear energy plants of France and the coal-fired power plants of Poland. They used to import it from Russia, of course. They can get by. We don't have that. We're an island nation, so when a Dunkelflaute hits this country it really will be the dark doldrums. We will not have factories, we'll have the lights out and we'll have Australian families who cannot afford the basic costs of living. We cannot do that in this country with so many energy resources. I support this bill but I support investing in all Australian energy. 11:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank senators for their contributions to what was a characteristically wide-ranging debate here in our chamber on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and I am always intrigued by decisions from opposition senators to come into this chamber and provide commentary about national energy policy. That's because the most significant characteristic of the last decade of Liberal government in coalition with their junior partners, the National Party, was an entirely chaotic approach to energy policy. Unhappily for Australians, we are reaping the benefits of that chaos. It is worth stepping through just a handful of their 22 policies—there are actually more policies than I would have time to go through. None of them landed, of course: not a single one of them landed. Senators here who are honest with themselves will recall sitting on Senate committees when the energy industry, rather desperately, would come before senators in Senate committees and essentially say: 'For heaven's sake, could the government—could the Liberal-National government—please deliver a coherent, consistent and predictable energy policy so we can get on with energy decision-making?' Senator Hanson-Young I0U Any energy policy! Senator McALLISTER 121628 'Any energy policy of any kind, because we would like to make final investment decisions about this project or that project or another project.' But during that long decade of Liberal and National party government none of that could happen, because there was no energy policy. Under Mr Abbott we had Direct Action. He was then of course replaced by Mr Turnbull, who set Dr Finkel to work in labouring over a long and quite coherent report where he recommended a clean energy target. Of course that wasn't adopted, it produced enormous infighting and, ultimately, was transformed into something else—the National Energy Guarantee. Mr Turnbull sought to legislate that and that of course was overwhelmed by infighting and bickering within the Liberal and National coalition—and, I suspect, between Liberals themselves. That saw the demise of Mr Turnbull and we ended up with Mr Morrison as the Prime Minister. He of course had a big-stick policy—a policy which was, strangely, not connected to any of the actual challenges facing the energy system at the time. We had Mr Taylor in the chair as the energy minister—he now wants to be the Treasurer—who suggested that taxpayers should indemnify new coal projects. That of course produced more fighting between the Liberals and the Nationals and we ended up with the UNGI, the billion dollars that was going to produce a whole lot of new investment in energy projects that never eventuated. Then we had a technology road map. It's actually quite unclear what the energy policy of the Liberal and National parties is at the moment. It seems to have something to do with nuclear. Of course they had a decade where they could have pursued nuclear energy and could have enlivened that option for the country. But they didn't do that and now, as far as I can tell, the only policy they have on the table is a policy to put a nuclear reactor in every coastal community. So it's an intriguing approach from a group of people who would like to come in here and talk about social licence. It's an absolutely intriguing set of propositions but, more generally, an interesting political approach, because I think honesty does matter. Actually thinking about the legacy of the previous government in relation to energy policy and just having the tiniest bit of insight about the problems generated by their approach over the last decade might actually be appropriate as they commence a period in opposition. That's because the legacy of all of this is that four gigawatts of capacity were retired from the system—four gigawatts of capacity left the electricity system and only one was constructed. That was a direct consequence of the chaos and dysfunction in the government led by those three Liberal prime ministers. It was chaos and dysfunction which led to the exit of a very significant volume of capacity from the system, with very little to replace it. The Labor government is setting about remedying those challenges and the problems created by the mismanagement and incompetence of those opposite. This bill is essentially a technical bill, and I will return to the substance of what is before us. The establishment of offshore renewable energy will promote regional development by enabling sustainable investment in Australia's coastal areas, creating jobs and growing local economies. This bill makes some quite small administrative amendments to the existing Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to reflect machinery-of-government changes. The bill also makes some technical amendments and closes a regulatory gap in the Customs Act 1901 to ensure full coverage of customs obligations for new renewable energy infrastructure projects offshore. This regulatory framework for offshore renewables will contribute to delivering cleaner, cheaper renewable energy for Australian households and businesses. This underpins the acceleration of energy transition and decarbonisation in Australia. We're sending a clear signal that we are open for business when it comes to new energy investment, and we are giving certainty to the market. I thank the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for their inquiry into the bill and their recommendation that it be passed. The government is committed to a sustainable offshore wind industry with a strong social license for its operation and benefits to the community. It's important that this new industry for Australia not only cuts emissions but is environmentally sustainable in its operations. I note the comments from Senator Whish-Wilson, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate. We do expect that these projects will take all reasonable steps to deliver on this important part of their social license, including through the reuse and recycling of any components that are being decommissioned. The department is developing further regulations about management plans and the operation of offshore electricity infrastructure, and it will take these issues into account in that process. While we do not support the need for a second reading amendment, we are committed to an environmentally sustainable industry in Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1751, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:35]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 24 11:38 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 11:39 Senator 121628 New South Wales McALLISTER (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 24

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

Second Reading 24 11:39 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise, on behalf of the opposition, to speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, which the opposition will be supporting. I will flag that during this contribution we will also be seeking to move amendments to this legislation. The government's bill before the Senate today is to establish a high-speed rail authority as an independent body to advise on, plan and develop a high-speed rail system in Australia. It was passed by the House of Representatives with the same amendments that are before the Senate. The coalition support the bill but will move our amendments that will improve the accountability and transparency of the authority to ensure there is representation on the authority's board from rural and regional Australia. As we roll out a raft of infrastructure projects across this great country, whether they be in road, rail, shipping or, indeed, airport infrastructure, it's very, very important that anybody who is charged with rolling out that infrastructure takes the time to consult with local communities. The types of towns and regional capitals that Senator Cadell and I represent as proud members of the National Party need to have a say in how these projects will impact on our communities, in how they will be beneficial to our communities and in what governments—local, state and federal—will do to mitigate some of the negative impacts as we roll that infrastructure out. Obviously, the coalition, during our period in federal government, was a strong proponent of rail infrastructure throughout our country. We released a 20-year national faster rail plan in 2019 and at the 2022-23 budget in March committed a further $3.72 billion to deliver faster rail, bringing total commitments to faster rail projects to $6 billion. The bill before us today doesn't provide the billions of dollars required to actually build faster or, indeed, fast rail track in our country—no. It's a bill to set up an authority to have some discussions and to plan out the trajectory of fast rail under the Labor Party. What we'd like to see is a continuation of our own commitment of in excess of $6 billion—real money on the table to actually build track to ensure we are moving not just people but goods right across our great country. We in this chamber know how important rail infrastructure will be to a low-emissions future, which we in the National Party and the Liberal Party are committed to. In our March budget, prior to the election, we committed $1.6 billion for the Brisbane to Sunshine Coast extension, $1.12 billion for the Brisbane to Gold Coast rail upgrade and $1 billion for the Sydney to Newcastle upgrade. The New South Wales government also made a $500 million commitment to provide a quicker and more reliable connection between Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle. Coalition parties very much understand how critical it is to expand our rail network in partnership with state governments and to ensure that the best technology is being employed to ensure that not just those who live in capital cities get to access this fantastic mode of transport which is constantly changing. I've had the benefit of travelling abroad and travelling on the Shinkansen, which really transformed what it means to put your population outside of capital cities. It's something we in the coalition very much believe in. One of the great tragedies of our country is our urbanised nature. Eighty per cent of our population live in three places, which is unheard of anywhere else around the globe. Those of us in the Liberal and National parties believe in spreading our population out. Thanks to COVID, so many more Australians chose to come out into the regions and experience not just a great way of life but high-paid, rewarding careers in 21st century industries. That was part of the coalition government's commitment, ensuring that the prosperity of this nation is shared right throughout our country and not just concentrated in the cities. So we're really keen to take a look at any moves to improve the rail network, We remain committed to faster rail because of its benefits to improve services, stimulate regional growth and improve access to jobs, services, affordable housing and education. High-speed rail along the Australian east coast has been examined by both sides of politics since the 1980s. The most comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of high-speed rail in Australia was undertaken from 2010 to 2013. The cost in 2012 was estimated to be $114 billion. That equates to approximately $131 billion in 2020. There haven't been any more detailed costings since that time. The National Faster Rail Agency reviewed the high-speed rail policy and found that the 2012 cost is considered to be low, and current estimates are likely to be between $200 billion and $300 billion. The major barriers to high-speed rail in Australia include the cost of construction. I note that the infrastructure minister and the Labor Party are using the high cost of construction in this country to delay and cut a lot of critical infrastructure projects, across the portfolio, and the 10-year pipeline that the coalition government put in place. This is of great concern to so many businesses and communities, right around the country. They thought the pipeline of projects that were going to be bid on and delivered, over the next decade, would be a lot more bipartisan than it seems to be, with the politicised efforts of the Labor Party thus far—and we don't need to go into the Suburban Rail Loop, in Melbourne, any more than we have recently in this chamber. There are long distances and we are sparsely populated. The distance between our major cities is also one of the barriers identified. Once operational, though, high-speed rail is expected to reduce carbon emissions relative to air travel, but it would increase carbon emissions in the construction phase, and construction would most likely take several decades. Whilst they're the barriers, we want to touch on some of the issues in our amendments. We want Infrastructure Australia to undertake economic assessments and a cost-benefit analysis of this project. We want that, and we thought the Labor Party wanted it too. We took the Prime Minister at his word when he said that major projects under a government he led would go through an Infrastructure Australia methodology and process prior to approval and funding—unless they're the pet projects of Premier Daniel Andrews a couple of weeks out from a state election. You won't see any more politicisation of the infrastructure funding, under this government, than that decision in the October budget that didn't have to be made. We know that the funding isn't going to be flowing for that project until the 2024-25 financial year. They could have taken the time and put it through appropriate processes, like Infrastructure Australia, but they chose not to—because they would have lost the political opportunity that gave Daniel Andrews in a state election campaign. It's absolutely appalling. The coalition wants to make sure that these projects do go through an Infrastructure Australia process. We do want to make sure they stack up. We do want to make sure that we increase the transparency on decision-making. You know what we also want to do? We want to make sure that this agency, when it looks at planning potential routes of fast rail, bothers to consult with local communities. That's something we have learnt. Unless you task these types of agencies to do that work, the bureaucrats in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra will get their maps out, they'll draw their lines, and it all looks tickety-boo—and nobody bothered to check with the locals. You know what ends up happening? You end up with a lot of angry people on the ground, and you end up having to have a lot of difficult conversations, too late in the process, about compulsory acquisitions. You might actually learn something that would facilitate better planning. Our amendments will ensure that this agency consults with local communities. Our amendments will also ensure that one person in this agency—just one—is from rural and regional Australia, because that is where this agency will be looking at delivering these types of projects—the country. We talk a lot about identity in this place: who's got it and who hasn't, what types of identity they have and what types they don't have. One of the key parts of my identity is that I am from rural and regional Australia. There was a great song. I think it was from the 80s, but I could be wrong; it might have been earlier. I stand to be corrected, and I'd love some help on that if anyone's got Google handy. It said, 'You can take the girl out of the country, but you can never take the country out of the girl.' No matter if you're living in London, in Milan or in Beijing—if you grew up in country Australia, that stays with you your whole life. We would like that perspective—that view of the world—to be held by just one person in this agency that will be tasked with delivering these projects into these communities. As a stark example of why there needs to be greater transparency on the bill, the original explanatory memorandum released before the vote in the other place said that the passing of this legislation would have no financial impact and that any financial impact would actually be offset. That was in the explanatory memorandum that all of us, as legislators and policy thinkers, use to inform ourselves about the government's offerings. Yet, in the budget in October, the cost of establishing the High Speed Rail Authority was revealed to be 18 million bucks. That's not zero. The Labor Party might think that 18 million bucks is a lazy accounting error and doesn't require mentioning in the explanatory memorandum—that it's actually 'no financial impact'. I could do a lot out in country Australia and across our communities with $18 million. I could build some childcare centres. I could actually fund some places for child care. The budget papers do not say how many years the $18 million will be spread over or if it's a one-year cost. The government has not been transparent, even from day one of establishing the authority. It's not clear in the budget measure or in the explanatory memorandum how this cost is being offset. Have they cancelled another infrastructure project to pay for this? These are the sorts of questions I will be examining in the committee stage. This is, in and of itself, a breach of trust by the Labor Party, which likes to uphold itself as the custodian of accountability and transparency when nothing could be more wrong, as we've seen in the brief time they've held the Treasury benches thus far. The new Labor government has pledged $500 million to the agency, which does not constitute a serious commitment to even the first stage of fast rail between Newcastle and Sydney. As I outlined, the former Liberal and National government put $6 billion of actual money into actual track—into projects that would actually deliver something out in the community—not half a billion dollars into talkfests. If the Labor Party were actually serious about delivering this project, rather than delivering Dan Andrews's $2.2 billion election commitment, they would have put billions of dollars towards that in this budget rather than putting $500 million towards setting up an agency. The coalition amendments will also require interaction with the Productivity Commission for more transparency and accountability and for Infrastructure Australia. I look forward to the committee stage. 11:54 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria High-speed rail represents an incredible opportunity for Australia. We are the last continent that hasn't got high-speed rail—other than Antarctica. It's good to see that we may be moving away from the station, because there is a real threat that the penguins will get to high-speed rail before we do in Australia! The Greens have been advocating for high-speed rail for a very long time, for a whole range of reasons. High-speed rail is critical to reducing emissions from air travel. High-speed rail will connect our regional centres with the capital cities. It will connect the capital cities—the big cities—with each other efficiently and allow us to have zero-carbon transport between those cities. It will also enable us to deal with the issue of unsustainable flight noise around airports in our big cities. As I said, the Greens have been campaigning for high-speed rail for a very long time, so we are pleased to be supporting the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, which will set up an authority to actually get those wheels turning and move us away from the station. At the 2010 federal election, we took policy commitments on east coast high-speed rail to the electorate as part of our vision for a 21st century transport system. Following that election, the Greens made support for high-speed rail a part of our minority government agreement with the Gillard government, and we secured $20 million for the feasibility study for high-speed rail. That wouldn't have happened except for the negotiations with the Gillard government in 2010. We know from that feasibility study that high-speed rail really does stack up for Australia. So it's been very frustrating to see that high-speed rail actually has been stopped at the station since then. We're very pleased to see action happening. At the 2022 election, the last federal election, our platform had a policy of committing $17.7 billion over the next four years for the initial stages of high-speed rail development and construction. It's about actually spending the money and setting up the authority, yes, but it's then about committing to start spending the money. This is a critical investment in the future of Australia. It's the type of investment that we need to be making—that is going to have transformational impacts on the shape of east coast Australia. The Labor government, in now setting up this authority and in their commitments to high-speed rail, have so far committed only half a billion dollars rather than our commitment of $17.7 billion. The 2010 feasibility study estimated that the cost of the overall project from Brisbane to Melbourne would be $114 billion, which is, in 2022 terms, $135 billion. There's a real concern that this bill has no provision for ensuring that this project stays in public hands. This High Speed Rail Authority could end up overseeing developments that mean you've got a privatised system delivering it through public-private partnerships that put the interests of those private investors ahead of the public. With Labor at this stage committing only $500 million for a $130-plus billion project, our fear is that most of it in fact will be delivered through private financing operations that will undermine the project. Crucial infrastructure like this should remain fully publicly owned, from construction to service delivery. Partial or wholesale privatisation of high-speed rail will lead to chaotic and slowed project delivery, higher prices for passengers, downward pressure on rail workers' wages, and cost cutting and corner cutting on regulations on the environmental and social impact. And it will mean that the project is not necessarily being delivered in the best interests of good regional planning. The last iteration of high-speed rail that we saw from the private sector, the CLARA development, which was all going to be paid for by property uplift, was a case in point of what can happen if you have a private sector approach to high-speed rail. That project—and I'm not sure where it's up to at the moment; I hope that it is now in the dustbin of high-speed rail history—was going to basically take rural land, turn that into the centres of those cities and pay for the development by the uplift in the value of that land. The big problem with that is that those centres were some 15 or 20 kilometres away from the major regional towns. So what would happen is that you would have this centre that, for example, was 20 kilometres away from Shepparton, which would end with complete devastation and downturn in the existing regional centres. You might have the private developers doing very well out of property development costs for the new regional centres, but how about the people who have successful businesses, and their whole town, that have been set up in the regional centres that are being bypassed? We want to see high-speed rail that's publicly owned and developed in the public interest, that makes sure that the stations of those regional centres along the route are right in the heart of those regional cities. It becomes a very efficient way for people from Melbourne to get to Shepparton and Albury, and for people in the regional centres in New South Wales and Queensland to reach their capital cities. It will transform the decentralisation agenda, transform the development of those cities. It will mean the east coast of Australia will genuinely have those thriving, vibrant cities that are well connected with fast, efficient, zero carbon transport and which connect them with each other and the capital cities. It will be transformational. It's a wonderful vision. It relies upon making sure that this development occurs in the public interest, which is only going to be guaranteed by maintaining public ownership of high-speed rail. Elizabeth Watson-Brown moved an amendment, in the House, calling on the government to ensure that the whole project remains entirely in public hands, that's delivered with green steel, as much as possible, to cut down on emissions in the construction phase and to ensure that local manufacturing is used. This amendment, and all three of those things, are incredibly important and would be really valuable additions to this bill. Unfortunately, they were voted down by both the government and the Liberal Party. The cost of $130 billion sounds like a lot of money, but we can afford it. The yardstick of what we can afford—we have a government that is committed to implementing the Liberal government's policy of tax cuts to the very wealthy. Those stage 3 tax cuts will cost $250 billion over the next decade. Just imagine. You could have $250 billion of tax cuts, over the next decade, to the rich—to the billionaires, to people earning massive amounts of money, who wouldn't know what to do with an $11,000-a-year tax cut other than to have another flight to a holiday somewhere in Europe—or you could be delivering high-speed rail. It's $130 billion to deliver high-speed rail. These are the choices that need to be made. I know where I would prefer to be spending my money. Rather than giving $250 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthy, I would prefer to see high-speed rail being built, thanks very much, and I think the majority of Australians would think the same. Our support for high-speed rail isn't just because we are gunzels—train and tram enthusiasts, for people who don't know the word—it's because of those benefits. It's because of the benefits for planning and development, and it's the benefits of having really fast, efficient, zero carbon travel across the country. We have some of the busiest flight routes in the world. Melbourne to Sydney is the second-busiest domestic flight route in the world. Brisbane to Sydney is the world's eighth-busiest domestic route. Pre-COVID these routes had close to 100,000 flights a year, producing enormous carbon emissions. Carbon pollution per passenger, for flying, is estimated to be 90 kilograms per hour. Let's take, as an example, trips that we all here know well: coming to Canberra. I live in Melbourne. Getting to Canberra requires me to jump on a plane and fly here. At that rate, of 90 kilograms per hour, my estimate is that it's a cool 75 kilograms of carbon emissions per passenger—so for me. My carbon footprint for flying to Canberra is 150 kilograms return, which means it totally wipes out all of my efforts to reduce my carbon pollution, from travel, at home. I ride my bike. I catch public transport. I hardly ever drive my car—I have a car. It's a very fuel-efficient little car that sits in the driveway most of the time. I estimate that by riding my bike and catching public transport I probably do about 100 kilometres a week that my next-door neighbour might otherwise do by driving. That 100 kilometres a week avoids around 11 kilograms of carbon emissions. I wipe out those carbon savings every time I fly to Canberra. A hundred and fifty kilograms of carbon is produced in a return trip, wiping out the 11 kilograms that I save by very faithfully using my bike and public transport to get around town every week in Melbourne. But there is no other reasonable option for me. At the moment, there is no high-speed rail to get me from Melbourne to Canberra and back again. I've tried public transport from Melbourne to Canberra; I did it in the early years of being a senator. I caught the train from Melbourne to Albury and then the bus from Albury to Canberra. I had to leave home early on Sunday morning to get here on Sunday evening. The alternative was that I could catch a train and change trains in Goulburn at 4 am, which I decided probably wasn't a good idea for the beginning of a busy Senate week. Basically, there is no option. High-speed rail would give us that option—and not just for us politicians. It would give people the option of zero carbon, fast, efficient travel between our capital cities. You could get from Melbourne to Sydney in under four hours and from Sydney to Brisbane in a similar amount of time, which would slash the amount of air travel. It is a critical factor in reducing our carbon pollution from flying. It is there, it is possible, it is economically viable and it is achievable. We need to be fast-tracking it. We need to get that high-speed rail happening at the speed of high-speed rail. The International Energy Agency has shown that the introduction of high-speed rail around the world has led to significant reductions in air travel on many specific routes—Paris to London and Seoul to Busan, for instance. In these cases, air travel was halved when high-speed rail was introduced. High-speed rail in Australia could do the same thing, massively decreasing our transport emissions and providing people with a high-quality, comfortable and enjoyable transport alternative to flying. If you also consider all the delays and chaos at airports at the moment, people are begging for that convenient and reliable alternative. The other benefit of reducing air travel is that it reduces the issue of airport noise around cities. In the whole time that I've been in the Senate, I have worked with communities in the suburbs around Melbourne Airport, who are really affected by increasing airport noise, which is set to increase. We've got Melbourne Airport now proposing a third runway, and people in the whole City of Brimbank are going to suffer from a massive increase in airport noise. That not only is unpleasant but actually has demonstrated impacts on people's health and wellbeing, childhood development and the ability for kids to learn at school. These things have been documented, in terms of the noise of excessive air flights over residential areas. But when people complain about airport noise around Australian airports they're basically told just to suck it up: 'Oh well, you live close to an airport, so there's nothing we can do about it.' The people of Brimbank are basically being told the same thing: 'Airport noise is going to increase above your whole municipality—bad luck; that's how it is.' Well, there is something that we can do about it. We can reduce the amount of air travel. As I said, Melbourne to Sydney is the second busiest domestic air travel route in the world. If we had the number of Melbourne to Sydney flights halved—and I think it would probably be more than that if we had high-speed rail—it would have a significant impact on the noise being experienced around Melbourne Airport. So high-speed rail is crucial to cutting flight noise and this pollution long term. The only way to truly reduce domestic flight noise in the long run is to reduce the overall number of domestic flights in Australia, and high-speed rail would be able to achieve that. In summary, we welcome this bill. It's a beginning, but there's so much more that needs to be done. For our future, for reducing our carbon pollution and for tranquil, pleasant cities, high-speed rail is absolutely essential. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I call Senator Davey. I'll just let you know, Senator Davey, that we have a hard marker at 12.15. 12:09 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales That's okay, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will continue my remarks later, because this is an important issue. High-speed rail is something that this country has been talking about since at least the 1980s. I remember when we got the first XPT between Canberra and Sydney. As a boarding school student, I used to jump on the XPT. It still took three hours to get from Canberra to Sydney, but in those days that was actually quite fast. The XPT was going to be the frontrunner for what we were going to develop, which was high-speed rail. And, just like the best episodes of Utopia, this is a continuing drama. When you look up high-speed rail in Australia on Wikipedia, it highlights the various fast, faster, fastest, high, higher and highest speed pipe dreams that have captivated various members of this place almost since the first railway line was built. We have had concepts for the very fast train or the VFT, the tilting train speed rail proposal, the east coast very high-speed train scoping study—which as a consultant I actually did a desktop audit to help for—high-speed rail for Australia, an opportunity for 21st-century western fast rail, a magnetic levitation line in Melbourne, and another VFT between Sydney and Melbourne, the study of which was announced by the Rudd government in 2013 when it was estimated the cost would be $114 billion. What we now have is $500 million to set up another agency. Our side isn't totally innocent in this. In 2019-20 we established the National Faster Rail Agency. We did a lot of work through that agency to look at business cases for higher-speed and faster rail between capital cities and regional centres. We allocated 40 million to assess five fast-rail corridors on top of three business cases already under way at the time of establishing that agency, including the Sydney to Newcastle case. In our budget of 2021-22, we set aside a $1 billion commitment for the Sydney to Newcastle, Tuggerah to Wyong faster-rail upgrade. This is where the Utopia part of it really comes into play. What is the difference between faster rail and high-speed rail? I would have thought that if it is faster then, ergo, it has a higher speed, but I asked at estimates about the new High Speed Rail Authority legislation, which is the $500 million commitment. I said, 'We've got the National Faster Rail Agency already and the High Speed Rail Authority, so which is which and what is what?' The response was: The National Faster Rail Agency is intended to have part of its functions rolled into the High Speed Rail Authority and part of its functions rolled into the department as the High Speed Rail Authority is established. They went on to say: Some of the projects identified and developed through the National Faster Rail Agency are on the books between the Commonwealth and the state, and they will continue to be so until such time as either they're built or government has a different decision. This is why we are where we are today—still talking about it and not doing it. We have a change of government so we change the name of an authority or an agency, we reduce the funding available to that agency to give half of it to the new agency, while half of it will get absolved back into the department, and we continue to go around in circles. No government has actually made the hard decision. We had the funding set aside for the Sydney to Newcastle, Tuggerah to Wyong faster rail upgrade. Why is that business case not being adopted? Why do we have to go through all of the palaver to rename an agency? I was told by Mr Hallinan from the department: I don't think there's enough in the budget to do substantial construction activity but there's certainly enough in there for detailed planning … We are setting up an agency with $500 million so they can do more planning, more desktop surveys and more reviews. They are not even going to be able to afford to purchase the rail corridor or easements. They will, perhaps, be able to do some corridor protection and negotiation—that's also a quote from the department—but they're in no position to actually start work or to purchase easements. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS United Nations Climate Change Conference 30 12:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 27, has just wrapped up over in Egypt. I want to take some time today to reflect on Australia's representation at the conference and what lessons that we can all take away from what was discussed. First of all, it's great that Australia can finally be taken seriously at these international conferences. The Liberals and Nationals spent a decade tearing each other apart on the issue of climate change, and were completely left behind as the rest of the world recognised the necessity of reducing emissions and the economic imperative for investing in new technologies. Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, gave our national statement to the COP 27 last Tuesday, and I think this quote really sums up why electing a federal Labor government has had such a positive impact on our international reputation. The minister said that Australia is back as a constructive, positive and willing climate collaborator. Unlike the coalition, Labor does not see investing in new technologies and collaborating with our allies as contrary to the national interest. In fact by sticking its head in the sand on climate change, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government put Australia at an enormous economic disadvantage. They left us with an ageing energy grid that is not ready for the new technologies that we know have a part to play as part of our energy mix in order to lower emissions and lower prices. We know that we're playing catch-up in this area, but Labor are determined to do everything that we can to become leaders in this space—both to tackle climate change and also to set up our economy for the future. We know that taking climate change seriously is also essential for our relationships with our Pacific neighbours. As Minister Bowen told COP 27, climate change is a primary economic and security challenge for our region, and it is a threat to the Blue Pacific continent. I was excited to see the announcement that Australia is seeking to host COP 31 in 2026 with our Pacific family. What a difference just six months of real leadership has made! Today I also want to focus on the actual climate change solutions that were discussed at COP 27, because while there is, rightly, a lot of focus and interest on new technologies as part of addressing climate change there is so much more innovation and so many good practices in traditional industries—particularly in agriculture and forestry—that will be essential parts in reducing our emissions. I believe it is really important that we talk about these industries when we're talking about climate change. Entire communities depend on agriculture and forestry, and far too often the climate change conversation feels like city folk are talking to workers and their families in the regions, usually without ever setting foot on a farm or in a mill. So we should really be proud that our delegation to COP 27 included representatives not just from the National Farmers Federation or the Australian Forest Products Association but also the CFMEU Manufacturing Division. It was really good to see a whole collective there representing the industry. This shows that the Albanese Labor government understands that these industries are part of the solution to climate change and that lowering our emissions requires a collaborative approach between government and industry. Indeed, at the Australian pavilion, the Australian Forest Products Association hosted an event with participants from Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and the CFMEU Manufacturing Division, talking about how sustainable forestry will play a critical role in mitigating climate change and sustaining livelihoods. One of the most significant outcomes from COP27 is that Australia has become a founding member of the Forests and Climate Leaders Partnership, a new international group that has been tasked with accelerating the contribution of forests to global climate action. United Nation research suggests that 33 million hectares of new plantations are needed to meet future demand and our climate goals. Our delegation highlighted how Australia can actually lead the way by achieving our 2030 goal of one billion new production trees. I've spoken many times in the Senate about the significant contribution made by our sustainable forestry industry to achieving our emissions reduction targets. It's quite simple when you think about it. We know that trees absorb carbon, so using timber products stores that carbon, and then new trees are planted to replace the timber that is used for those products. It's great to see the role forestry plays in climate action being recognised and encouraged on the world stage. Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Jenny McAllister, spoke at the 'Keeping 1.5 degrees alive through growing the climate-smart forestry based bio-economy' panel at COP27, along with representatives from other government and industry bodies. The panel considered new research that urges nations to grow their sustainable forestry industries, thereby addressing an emerging global timber and wood supply gap as the world pivots to climate-friendly fibre supplies. This research clearly shows that we are already doing what we knew. Demand for timber products is increasing, and, if we do not support sustainable forestry, this demand will either be met by unsustainably sourced timber or by other products that do not have the same climate benefits and may even contribute to higher emissions. This is one of the great frustrations that I have with environmentalists. They do everything they can to disrupt the forestry industry in my home state of Victoria. We have one of the most sustainable forestry industries in the world, with very strict regulations, but nothing is ever enough for these activists, most of whom live in the inner city and have never spoken to a timber worker in their life. But they are hell-bent on destroying the livelihoods of thousands of workers and effecting dozens of regional communities. What actually occurs when these people succeed in their goal of disrupting Australia's sustainable industry forests? Demand for timber products doesn't decrease. Instead buyers and consumers have to source these products from forests overseas that are not sustainably managed. I have been engaged in this debate for years now, and I've never heard one of the activists explain how this is good for the environment or lowers our emissions. But it is great to see that world leaders know better. They are recognising the need to expand the production of sustainable forest products. AFPA and the NFF collaborated at COP27 to showcase how agriculture and forestry can work together on innovation climate solutions. One example I want to highlight was a Victorian red meat and tree farmer, Mark Wootton, who spoke at the event with the peak bodies. I want to read a quote from Mark to the chamber because it demonstrates how agriculture and forestry are an essential part of the solution to climate change. Mark said: About 20 per cent of our land has been converted to trees, half of that for farm forestry and half for biodiversity. The benefits have been amazing. We are now able to carry a far greater number of sheep and cattle thanks to the shelter the trees have provided, reducing losses from windchill. There have also been marvellous biodiversity dividends. We counted 45 bird species in the late 1990s. Now we have more than 170. In addition, we are soon to benefit from a major financial gain when our production trees are harvested for timber. Mark's example is a real wake-up call that environmental interests and industry interests do not need to be opposed. They don't clash. In fact, they work and compliment one another. Far too often we see politicians and activists spurring on this opposition for their own political ends. Whether it be some political parties trying to boost their support in the inner city by campaigning against the industry in regional Australia or the conservatives telling voters in regional seats that action on climate change will have a negative impact on their communities, these cynical political tactics don't stack up against the reality that the development of the industry in regional Australia is essential if we are to meet our climate goals. This is not federal Labor's approach. What we are trying to do is to bring Australians together to confront the big challenges like climate change, not wedging people against each other. And I'm glad that this approach was endorsed and reflected at COP27. (Time expired) Mining Industry 31 12:25 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise today to point out that those calling for the end of mining in this country are also calling for the end of our economy as we know it, the end of many small family owned businesses, the end of high-paying regional jobs, the end of royalties and taxes flowing into government coffers to pay for roads, for schools, for hospitals, and the end of serious investment. We know that there was mining investment of over $27 billion, of which 82 per cent was spent within the Queensland economy alone. These numbers are especially significant when you extrapolate them across the rest of the country. It is one thing for antimining campaigners to tweet angrily about this industry, but they completely miss the point, notwithstanding the fact that their mobile devices wouldn't exist without mining, because there is hypocrisy abounding in such circles. It is a great shame that mining's contribution to our lives is ignored by many of our thought and policy leaders. Many who work in this place are giving oxygen to the fears of children who believe mining is destroying their futures and are inspiring people to glue themselves to the road. This month the Queensland Resources Council released their eighth code effectiveness report 2021. This is a review of the code of practice for local content expenditure. This is a terrifically important document because it measures the very things that we, as a community, as a society, expect our significant miners, no matter what sector they're in, to contribute to this country in all sorts of ways. In particular I want to talk about what's happening in Queensland. This report shows that spending by mining and energy companies on local goods and services rose by $1 billion, or four per cent, and it's expected to increase again this financial year. Eighty-two per cent of the $27.7 billion expenditure was spent in Queensland. That is money that goes to small, medium and large businesses. It ensures that there is private sector employment, remembering that the mining sector has double the average wages and salaries in this country. Average salaries in Australia currently sit at $92,000 per year, so these are incredibly well-paid jobs. Brisbane is home to thousands of FIFO miners and mining head offices, so imagine what would happen to Queensland's capital if you ripped $14.2 billion out of its economy. While the size of Brisbane and its diverse business interests may be able to cushion the blow, transport that loss of spending to more distant places, such as Blackwater, Capella, Tieri, Dysart, Chinchilla and Oakey. These towns are filled with family owned companies servicing the nearby mines and gasworks. There are engineering firms, bakeries, service stations, laundromats, cleaners, caterers, tyre businesses and environmental services. I think a significant part of the mining story that is sometimes lost is that mining companies employ more environmental scientists and undertake more environmental research, surveys and programs than any other sector in the country. It is mining that ensures that the high standard of regulation demanded by governments at a state and federal level are met. This is something that mining companies—miners—are determined to achieve, and their ESG responsibilities are something that they are incredibly proud of. The Mackay region welcomed $5.49 billion in direct spending across 2020-21, well ahead of other mining hubs across the state. The Isaac region, home to 27 operating coalmines, welcomed $2.12 billion in direct spending, while Gladstone received $2.12 billion and the Central Highlands received $1.28 billion. This report is an important measure of the contribution of these companies supporting local businesses and supply chains in the regions in which they operate right across Queensland. The money has enormous flow-on benefits, not to mention the royalties and taxes on top of these figures that go, as I said before, to roads, schools, hospitals and all of those services that we expect government to provide. Mining companies and businesses are also embedded in their local communities. They sponsor sporting teams. They fund community infrastructure, like pools and playgrounds. But, most importantly of all, they provide the well-paid, purposeful, meaningful work that allows Queenslanders to have a quality of life that would not exist without the operation of these mining companies. In these regions, it is mines that provide the jobs that allow Indigenous kids and every other young kid who is in the regions to have well-paid, meaningful work. This is incredibly important because we expect our miners to be good corporate citizens, and yet they are doing the thing that allows people right across the state to live a great life. One in every six jobs and one in every $5 spent in Queensland can be linked to resource companies. But what is happening at a government level? In Queensland, the state government has increased royalties. Three years ago, there was an increase in gas royalties and, most recently, there was a completely unconsultative increase in coal royalties. This sent a shockwave of monumental proportions not just through the coal community but through every mining and resource business in Queensland. It set a level of uncertainty for investment. In addition, the Japanese ambassador and other trading partners have expressed their serious concern about whether or not Queensland and Australia is a secure and stable trading partner and whether or not we'll continue to be able to provide the energy reserves and resources that they need to operate their own economies. We most recently had the Japanese Prime Minister fly to Australia to have exactly that conversation. The resources minister was in Japan last weekend having the same conversation with her counterpart to try and deflect from the fact that at both the state and federal level Labor is determined to kill the goose that lays the golden egg for this nation. BHP and other companies have already scaled down operations in response to royalty hikes. They are very clearly telling these governments that they are now unable to make business investment decisions in these places. They are instead looking at competing jurisdictions overseas. We know that there will be projects. Those billions of dollars I started by talking about, the 82 per cent that's spent in Queensland alone and 98 per cent which is spent in Australia, is just from Queensland investment. But that money will not be spent in this country. It will go offshore. That will damage our quality of life. This federal Labor government and the state Labor government do not have a plan to replace this section of our economy. They do not have a plan to ensure that Queenslanders and Australians will continue to enjoy the quality of life that they have currently. They have no plan. They have a cabinet that's divided. We know that the renewables sector—and they are putting all their eggs into that basket—does not employ the same number of people and does not have the same number of well-paid jobs that we are used to in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia. They certainly do not have them in the regional places with the investments in regional communities that we have got used to in this country. There is no plan to successfully convert our economy, our electricity, our jobs, our royalties and our tax regime in the absence of our resources sector in this country. I think this is incredibly dangerous. Australians and Queenslanders should be furious that we are threatening the economic prosperity, the environmental prosperity and the future of our children and our grandchildren for a short-sighted rush to change this economy. Law Enforcement, Cybersecurity, Middle East 32 12:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I've seen the video of Sydney icon Danny Lim and the police violence he was subjected to yesterday, and it is genuinely shocking. Danny, a 78-year-old peaceful man, was tackled by two police officers in public and had his face smashed into the ground. He can be heard in the video calling out for help. This was in the centre of Sydney. The last update we've received is that he has a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain. He is still in hospital as I speak now. Our thoughts are with him. Danny, if you're hearing us, we wish you a speedy recovery. Danny was wearing his signature sandwich board, which has a misspelled four-letter word on it—one I won't say in this place, but one that is definitely not as offensive as the brutality he was subjected to yesterday. It's the same word that was on a sandwich board in 2019 when the police arrested and took Danny to court. That case was thrown out, with the magistrate saying the arrest was heavy-handed and unwarranted and that the sign was cheeky but not offensive. He was smashed to the ground yesterday for a cheeky sign. It seems they've learnt nothing. 'Don't worry,' say the New South Wales police, 'There is now an independent review happening of yesterday's assault.' We're still worried, because it's not independent. We know it will be police investigating police, and that only works for police. There are never any consequences for violent officers, and nothing seems to change. It's not just a few bad apples and it's not just one police force. It is a pattern of violent, racist policing where there are no consequences. In WA a report just this week shows that 61 per cent of the people attacked by police dogs—and some were kids—were First Nations people. In Queensland another scathing report shows in horrific detail the deeply racist and sexist actions of many serving police in that state, but not a single police officer has been fired or faced serious sanction. There aren't any other jobs I can think of where you can violently assault an elderly man—wrongfully and brutally—and be sure to keep your job. Police forces don't just need more training; they need a root-and-branch overhaul and a system of oversight with real consequences for bad behaviour. At a time when integrity and transparency are the flavours of the day it's time to apply exactly those standards to all police in this country. The Four Corners expose of Australia's youth detention centres is a national shame and a reminder of institutional abuse in our criminal justice system, a system that seems to condone the routine violation of human rights. Children in jail are our most vulnerable, most neglected and most marginalised children. In the first half of this year there have been 285 instances of self-harm and 20 attempts at suicide at the Banksia Hill Detention Centre alone. Just pause on that for a moment. That's just one child jail. We all remember 2016 when news broke about the appalling violence in Don Dale. As a nation we vowed to shut it down and stop abusing children like that and yet here we stand, six years later, and it's still open for business. Instead of supporting and funding child prisons that repeat and aggravate the cycle of misconduct and reoffending we need to turn those billions of wasted dollars towards supporting kids, not jailing kids; rehabilitation; and recovery. We must not look away from these disturbing reports and disturbing statistics and simply allow business as usual to continue. Australia continues to perpetuate its tragic and shameful past of invasion and colonisation through this systemically racist criminal justice system. We know it targets poor kids and First Nations kids, some as young as 10 years old. These are systems of institutionalised abuse that incarcerate children, breed intergenerational trauma and will take us backwards. It's not time for more reports or for more recommendations; it's time to take the only action that really matters. It's time to close all children's prisons in Australia. I want to thank Nirvana for these words and thoughts! When it comes to cybersecurity, Medibank must be breathing a sigh of relief this week as it looks at the government's empty promises while millions of Australians are reeling from their sensitive information being compromised and shared. There's a new penalty regime proposed by the Albanese government for privacy breaches after the Optus, Medibank, Woolworths and Vinomofo breaches—the list goes on. There was probably another one this morning. After those hacks, that new proposed penalty regime will see businesses facing fines of up to $50 million for privacy breaches. Or if the company benefited, they can be fined up to 30 per cent of their annual turnover. That sounds great. However, after we heard from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in the privacy inquiry last week, we know that that office does not have the funds to prosecute these companies, even with the new super penalty on the statute books. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has an annual budget of just over $30 million. With that, it's got to fulfil multiple roles—FOI, privacy, regulator—and we know that it'll cost $5½ million just to investigate Optus. And yet the OIC has more than 2,000 FOI reviews that are delayed a year or longer, some for as long as four years. That's because of their lack of resources. The $50 million fine is not much use if the regulator lacks the funding to undertake the investigation and prosecution of any more than one serious case at a time. The OIC's excessive workload and lack of funding risks the failure of the fines to act as a deterrent. And Medibank will know this, Woolworths will know this and the next major corporate will know this. Without the investment needed in the OIC, these fines are little more than a headline. There is a real danger that corporate Australia will see the new fines and the inability of the regulator to bring a prosecution, and just shrug their shoulders. We need joined-up policy and public interest law reform that's matched with the funding to make it work. That's how we keep our data safe. I want to thank Sally for pulling that piece together. How long will Palestinians be forced to wait for the most basic of rights—for freedom and for peace with justice? For decades now, Australia has been telling Palestinians to negotiate with Israel and to be a partner for peace. Let's take a moment to reflect on who the Palestinians have been asked to negotiate with now. Israel has just elected its most far-right government in history, and that's saying something. Australia's foreign minister has said that Australia's position as a friend of Israel will not be affected by the inclusion of far-right parties in the new Netanyahu led government. So who are our new friends? Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu will form government with parties of the far right, the Religious Zionist alliance, which now form the third-largest bloc in the Knesset. They're explicitly anti-Palestinian, explicitly anti-LGBTQI rights and ultraconservative. And Jewish party power leader, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who wants to be police minister, was convicted in 2007 for supporting a terror organisation and inciting racism. He said he wants to legislate to strip citizenship from, 'Anyone working against Israel from within Israel'. He recently attended a memorial for the late far-right movement leader Meir Kahane, whose violent anti-Arab ideology included calls to ban Jewish-Arab intermarriage and for the further mass expulsion of Palestinians. Kahane was considered so offensive that Israel banned his party from running for the Knesset and the US, amongst other countries, listed it as a terrorism group. The Religious Zionist Party leader, Bezalel Smotrich, also has a history of racism and has said the murder of a Palestinian family by Israeli settlers was not terrorism. Netanyahu has actively worked to ensure these figures are elected, and these extreme elements are likely to be given senior government positions in the new Israeli government. This is all led by Netanyahu, who himself has said that there will be 'no Palestinian state under his watch'. We only need to look to his record of aggressive settlement expansion to know that on this point, at least, he is speaking the truth. Make no mistake: illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have grown under every single Israeli government for the past half century, despite consistent international opposition. There are now roughly three-quarters of a million Israeli settlers living illegally on occupied Palestinian territory. And 2022 is also on course to be the deadliest year for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank on record, and that's before this frightening new government has even taken office. The rise of the far right in Israel heralds an even more terrifying and dangerous time for Palestinians. So why is the Albanese government behaving like it's business as usual? This is the time for Prime Minister Albanese and foreign minister Penny Wong to explicitly call out an extremist Israeli government. That's the least we could expect from a party and a government that goes on the record and says it wants to be a friend of Palestinians and a friend of peace, justice and freedom. Well, who are they really friends of? Gender and Sexual Orientation 34 12:45 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Before I begin the main subject of my speech, I want to address the debate which occurred in this place this morning over a bill which claims to prohibit the indoctrination of children, and I want to make it clear to young LGBTIQ+ community members who may have been listening that they are loved and treasured and valued. Know that views that are grounded in fear and disinformation, be they loud, will never win. I want to start my contribution with a quote: 'We now must be weary of wherever we think is our sanctuary.' This is just one of the recent tributes after the horrific shooting at Club Q, a gay nightclub in Colorado. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see another hateful attack directed at a vulnerable minority group, and I send my condolences to the family and friends that have lost loved ones so unnecessarily. Like many of our proud lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer venues here in Australia, Club Q was a safe place for self-expression without judgement. These are places where everyone, especially the LGBTIQ+ community, should be able to be themselves and love without fear. In my home state of Tasmania, there is a proud and vibrant LGBTIQ+ community that regularly comes together to celebrate and support each other. This weekend, even, the now iconic Limbo Party will be held in Hobart. This is just one example of a proud and inclusive community coming together to create a safe space where young people are supported to be their authentic selves. At the same time that pride will be taking centre stage at Limbo, the harmful practice of conversion therapy continues to remain legal in Tasmania. The Tasmanian parliament is currently debating the ban of this practice. But there is a loud minority that wants us to continue this shameful and unfounded practice that harms and traumatises young people across Australia. We have seen state and territory governments of all persuasions ban conversion therapy. As more and more jurisdictions move in the right direction, those left allowing the practice risk becoming safe havens for conversion therapy. Our young LGBTIQ+ people deserve to be respected and accepted, not to be vilified. In 2022, it is disappointing and sad that we're even having to have these debates. I extend my sincerest solidarity to the members of the LGBTIQ+ community facing more uncalled-for public commentary about how they express themselves and who they love. Despite its history of discrimination and segregation directed at LGBTIQ+ folks, the Tasmanian community in 2022 is a progressive and supportive community. In the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey in 2017, nearly 64 per cent of Tasmanian respondents voted yes to allow same-sex couples to marry—in a survey which, in its very principle, gave a platform to those with an inclination to spread hate, fear and often extreme misinformation at the expense of those simply wanting to express their love through marriage. Although it can be hard, remembering our history is important, because, without reflecting on our past, we could easily find ourselves back in a place where hate and intolerance find themselves a home in our communities. Before, during and after the public debate about the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the late 1990s, there was a stark and devastating increase in young gay men suiciding. In 1988, the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group formed and, within months, the Hobart City Council banned the group's stall at Salamanca Market. Thanks to protests, the ban was removed within a matter of weeks and the group remains active at the market to this day. In 1997 Tasmania became the last state in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality, but these days it is so great to see local members of the LGBTIQ+ community hiking together over the weekend as part of the Wellington Wanderers or dancing the night away at LIMBO—or both. Ten years ago I stood in this place and delivered a speech in the second reading debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, a private member's bill sponsored by former senators Trish Crossin and Gavin Marshall, as well as Senator Louise Pratt and me. Here is a paragraph that remains true to this day: Having a full life means having the right to love and means having the right to follow your heart. For some people that never involves marriage. For others it must mean marriage. It is the way they declare and swear their love to the world. They want to enter into a union acknowledged by the state to which they belong as adult citizens. For me a marriage is a commitment between two adults who make this choice together. The quality of their marriage will depend on their personal commitment and determination. They were the words I spoke during the second reading debate 10 years ago. Not long ago, people believed that people of different religious beliefs should not marry because that could not be a good marriage. In a good many places that claimed to be civilised, people of different ethnic backgrounds were also forbidden to marry. It was said that civilisation would fall if such marriages were allowed. Somehow, miraculously, civilisation has survived. In 2017, five years after I delivered that speech in this place, an act titled the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act passed through the Senate on 7 December and received royal assent the following day. I would like to add that the sky, as predicted by some, didn't cave in that night. Australia voted for marriage equality and a whole lot of people were able to demonstrate their love how they wanted and deserved: through marriage. This weekend, Victorians will have the privilege, I hope, of re-electing a progressive government, a government led with an unwavering commitment to equality and an unwavering commitment to justice. Under the leadership of Premier Daniel Andrews, the Victorian government has delivered for LGBTIQ+ Victorians through the Victorian Pride Centre, the Victorian Commissioner for LGBTIQ+ Communities and specific grant programs to support LGBTIQ+ Victorians. Instead of governing for government's sake, the Victorian government, in their own words, won't rest until equality is achieved for LGBTIQ+ people. In contrast, the Victorian Liberals campaign has been overshadowed by claims of Pentecostal groups and the hard right infiltrating the Liberals. Not only do some endorsed Liberal candidates subscribe to anti-same-sex-marriage beliefs; it has been revealed that some of their candidates have made racist statements about our First Nations community. Rightly, these candidates have been publicly criticised for their views and statements. This weekend, Victorians truly have a choice—and a pretty obvious one, if you ask me—to vote for a government which will continue the work so many Victorians have benefited from or for a Liberal Party that is eager to divide the community. The election in Victoria is a clear choice. Here, in this place, the times have changed as well. Australians voted for a federal government that will care for people no matter their gender or sexuality. They voted for a government that will not stand by while people are actively discriminated against. You won't find this government buddying up with organisations that actively support conversion therapy and believe that someone's expression of their gender is predatory. We are a government that will stand up against bigots and bullies when they attempt to use sexuality or gender to pit communities against one another and we are a government that believe that every Australian, without exception, deserves to be safe, supported and equal. It is a government that I am so proud to be part of. (Time expired) Victoria State Election 36 12:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria This Saturday the people across my home state of Victoria will head to the polls to vote in what is possibly the most important election that Victoria has faced in 30 years. It's been a very dark time for Victoria. The institutions and the services that we have relied upon have been left to fail and to founder. Our health system, our children's education and wellbeing, our integrity, our justice system and our financial and fiscal positions have all been whittled away by a government and a premier obsessed with power at the expense of people. For two years, Victorians suffered at the hands of a government whose responsibility it was, first and foremost, to protect them. We had draconian lockdowns, school closures, business closures, travel restrictions and curfews that we hadn't seen before—not even in wartime. We saw families torn apart, businesses ruined, and lives and livelihoods damaged irreparably. We should never forget that Victorians were forced to carry permits to go to essential work and that playgrounds and skate parks were taped off like crime scenes. The police were tasked with moving on elderly citizens sitting on park benches or with dispersing children congregating secretly because they had missed the social contact of 186 days of their schooling. The police were also tasked with arresting pregnant women in their homes for daring to question government's priorities on social media and with firing rubber bullets into crowds of peaceful protesters. This was my state, and it was all done without scrutiny because parliament was shut down and extraordinary powers were bestowed on those in charge—long after such powers were necessary. This was my state for two dark years, and we are changed forever because of it. On the other side, what are we left with? Skyrocketing debt and deficit; 47 new and increased taxes; cost blowouts in the billions for public works; a failed health system that, quite frankly, brings fear into the hearts of any Victorian who is elderly, injured or unwell; and the stench of corruption from countless inquiries into government members and government decisions. The office of the Premier, bloated and contemptuous, are surrounding their leader with spin and ring-fencing him from scrutiny. We cannot continue like this. Victorians deserve so much better. The people of Victoria have the opportunity to vote for change, to vote for integrity and to vote to fix our health crisis. Matt Guy and the Liberals have put forward a positive agenda that will deliver real solutions to the problems that Victoria faces. It is a comprehensive plan that will fix the healthcare crisis without raising taxes. It will put an end to Daniel Andrews's era of spiralling debt and higher taxes, rewarding hardworking Victorian families, helping small businesses, restoring integrity and accountability in government and building stronger communities. Victoria needs new government now more than ever before. Under an Andrews Labor government, Victoria's state debt has increased to more than that of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined. The projected deficit for 2022-23 has blown out from just below $8 billion to more than $10 billion. This is a 30 per cent blowout in just six months alone. The lagging household disposable incomes of Victoria mark a decade of financial decline. The Andrews government is focused on entirely the wrong priorities. Indeed, Dan Andrews himself can't say how much his signature project, the Suburban Rail Loop, will cost. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Hume, please use the Premier's correct title. Senator HUME 266499 I will call him by his correct name. The Premier says that, whatever it is, he'll pay for it; that's fine. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated that the first two stages might blow out to as much as $125 billion. That would make it the most expensive infrastructure project in Australia's history, and this is despite the fact that the Victorian Auditor-General has said it will only return just over 50 cents in every dollar spent. This is a project that does not stack up; it's a vanity project. It's an exercise in ego, but we have a Premier in Victoria who refuses to change his mind. Matt Guy, on the other hand, has committed to end this waste by shelving the Cheltenham to Box Hill rail line and diverting every dollar available from this project to fix Victoria's health crisis. Ambulances are ramping, surgery waitlists remain at stagnant record highs and children needing vital chemotherapy treatment are being turned away from hospitals. The new Guy government will fix this crisis. The Liberals have committed to provide an additional 50,000 surgeries, halving elective surgery time waitlists and dental waitlists; to train an additional 40,000 nurses; to build or upgrade 20 hospitals; and to fix the triple 0 line so that when you're ill or injured, somebody comes to help. These are real solutions that will put an end to Labor's healthcare crisis. Daniel Andrews has been in charge—sorry, the Premier has been in charge—of Victoria's health system as minister or Premier for the last 11 of 15 years and, as much as he tries to wriggle out of it, he cannot escape responsibility for this crisis. Victoria has a Premier who deplores accountability, but Matt Guy and the Victorian Liberals have a plan to restore integrity and accountability in Victoria, with more funding for the Victorian anti-corruption commission, more funding for the ombudsman and more funding and powers for the Parliamentary Budget Office. And they have future pandemic plans to keep schools open and for no vaccine mandates. Of course, no Victorian will ever be allowed to forget those lockdowns and the impact they had on hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren. I've been on the ground in Victoria, and everywhere I go Victorians are sick of this sick government and its distorted priorities. They are sick of the stonewalling and sick of the lack of accountability. But I've had the extraordinary pleasure of being with some outstanding candidates across Victoria who will deliver real change for Victorians. These are candidates like John Pesutto in Hawthorn, who is a dear friend of mine. He has lived in the area for 25 years and he continues to demonstrate a boundless energy to support the people of Hawthorn inside and outside parliament. There is Jess Wilson in Kew, who brings such a brilliant policy brain and a real understanding of what matters to the people in Kew. Matthew Lucas in Prahran; Debbie Taylor-Haynes in Bentleigh, Lucas Moon in Richmond and Nicole Ta-Ei Werner in Box Hill are outstanding candidates who have been recruited for all that they love and all they can contribute to my great state of Victoria. They demonstrate the kind of talent that Victoria needs in its parliament, to see it through what are going to be a number of challenging years ahead. They'll join other members of Matt Guy's excellent parliamentary team, like Michael O'Brien, the shadow Attorney-General, who of course is also my friend and local MP, and a tireless advocate for his community. David Southwick, the member for Caulfield, understands small business and how it has been impacted by the pandemic. He has been truly instrumental in coming up with the positive policies that will revitalise small business across Victoria. And Brad Rowswell, the member for Sandringham and deputy chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, has been holding the Andrews government to account wherever he possibly can—wherever this government has allowed him to do so. These are just a few of the very talented team that Matt Guy has assembled. He and his team have a comprehensive plan that delivers real solutions to the issues facing Victorians. Their real solutions plan demonstrates that they are safe, that they are sensible, that they are mainstream and that they are ready to govern. But Victorians need to understand one thing: there is only one way to get rid of this bad Dan-Andrews-led government. There is only one way to do that, and that is to vote Liberal and National on Saturday, not for anybody else. You cannot vote for anybody else and guarantee that you will get rid of Dan Andrews and this bad, this terrible and this damaging state government. That is why it's so important on this Saturday in my state of Victoria that Victorians step up, that they get out, that they vote and that they think long and hard about what these last few years have meant for them: what it has meant to have their children taken out of school for 186 days; what it has meant to be separated from their elderly parents for so many months, who have been stuck in aged care, unable to be visited by family and by friends; what it has meant to have their freedoms and their liberties taken away; and what it has meant to be spoken down to by a contemptuous, by an arrogant, by a self-centred government and a leader that simply must go. 13:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm going to speak about the Victorian election again, and I have to endorse what Senator Hume said, except for the part of voting for only the Liberal and National parties. Victorians go to the polls this week, and what a choice they have to make. They can vote for more of the same: record debt, actually $170 billion dollars, and an unaccountable government—like, it's my way or the highway under Labor—led by Premier Dan Andrews. Or they can vote for the coalition government, and there is an alternative there. But I'd say the coalition is probably a better choice than the Labor government, and some good, conservative, minor party candidates deserve consideration. Or they can actually vote for the illogic of Reason and waste votes on the radical Marxist Greens, so they have a great choice there. Or they can vote for the party that puts them, their state and their country first, which is One Nation, and I've always stood up and fought for the values of the Australian people in this country. One Nation will demand accountability for the direct attacks on democracy and freedom. Victorians were part of the longest, hardest and most ruinous pandemic lockdown in the world. One Nation will pursue this through a royal commission into the handling of the COVID-19 'panDanic' that everyone seems to want to back away from and doesn't want to answer to the Australian people for. Our party will champion energy independence, security, reliability and affordability. We'll push for Victoria's vast gas reserves to be used for the benefit of the Victorian people. We'll push for a second interconnector across Bass Strait and for the expansion of fuel storage facilities at Geelong. We'll advocate for measures to improve water and food security. One Nation supports expansion of the Big Buffalo dam and more certainty about water allocations for the state's irrigators. We'll work to improve educational outcomes, with a focus on critical skills and thinking and education instead of indoctrination. We'll work to arrest the slide of Australia's educational standards. We'll work to improve health services, especially in regional Victoria, tightening obligations on medical graduates to ensure they work in regional areas in return for assistance with their HECS-HELP debt. We have a strong, workable policy to address the rental and housing crisis in Victoria, banning foreign ownership of residential property to increase supply, lowering immigration to reduce demand and eliminating red tape which is slowing the release of land. We'll hold the government to account, working to implement recommendations from IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman. They are being ignored by the tyrannical Premier Andrews' government. We will advocate for long-term investments in infrastructure, especially in regional areas, that will underpin Victorian prosperity for decades to come. Upgrades to the Princes Highway and Bass Highway are our priorities, as is the massive backlog in regional road maintenance. One Nation will be the champion of revitalising Victoria's regional road and rail networks, and we will work to scrap the useless over-budget Metro link—nothing more than a vanity project for Premier Dan Andrews. We'll implement policies to support a skilled and flexible workforce, revitalising vocational education and establishing innovation hubs in regional areas and, most importantly, One Nation will be resolute in defence of fundamental democratic principles like freedom of speech, religion, association and assembly. These principles came under direct and sustained attack by the tyrannical Andrews Labor government, which shamelessly used intimidation, heavy-handed police tactics and surveillance to force the Victorian people into compliance. We will not allow that to happen ever again. To the people of Victoria I say, 'Make very sure your vote and your preferences go to the candidate who is going to work for you and your interests.' Election campaigns are like job interviews, and voters are the employer. Select the candidate who is going to represent you and your community and fight for your rights. With the revelations of Victorian voters being deliberately misled by cynical manipulation of upper house group voting tickets, the only safe vote above the line for the Victorian upper house is One Nation, but we strongly encourage you to vote below the line. I wish Victorians all the best for the future of the state, which is in their hands this coming Saturday, and I commend the One Nation team in Victoria, our candidates, members and volunteers for a great campaign. But let's always put Victoria and Victorians first. Heaven help Victoria if Daniel Andrews and his Labor government get voted back in again. (Time expired) Uluru Statement from the Heart 38 13:10 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia The Uluru statement is an invitation to the nation and it requires a response from the nation. It was given to us with goodwill by the 1,200 First Nations representatives that participated in 13 regional meetings across the country in 2016 and 2017. The 250 delegates that they selected to attend the final constitutional convention at Uluru formed a consensus on how they wanted to be recognised in the nation's Constitution. What emerged was a call for voice, treaty and truth, and since that day the Uluru statement has travelled the length and breadth of this country. Many hundreds of people from all walks of life have signed their names to it. We as Australians have each been accorded an opportunity to lay a new foundation for our relationship, rather than the one our nation was built on—the lie of terra nullius, that there were no people here when the British came. What First Nations people have asked for is a very simple thing: a say in how the parliament makes laws about their wellbeing and their lives. It will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a say on the issues that affect them—after 250 years, not a bad idea—by allowing communities to have a say on their destinies, and that will improve their lives and their circumstances. The government's role is to ensure that the bricks and mortar of a referendum are sound and that we give the Australian people the best chance of making a clear and considered decision on a voice to parliament. We are consulting with First Nations leaders and constitutional experts to lay the groundwork for a referendum. We have established three key groups to assist this preparation. The first group is a referendum working group of 22 First Nations leaders, all of whom have deep experience on voice, treaty and truth and we know have been working in these spaces for years. The second group's called the Referendum Engagement Group, a group of more than 60 First Nations leaders and community members drawn from regions across Australia to provide advice on what communities need and to propose ways for First Nations peoples to be meaningfully engaged in the Constitution. The third group is a constitutional expert group from across the political spectrum to consider the words on the questions proposed by the Prime Minister at Garma this year and to ensure the ultimate supremacy of the parliament. The work of each of these groups is ongoing. Let me share one part of the work to date, a set of principles for the Voice that have been agreed by the working group. It will be a body that provides independent advice to the parliament and the government. It will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples based on the wishes of their local communities. It will be representatives of those communities. It will be gender balanced and include youth. It will be accountable and transparent, and it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. The Voice will not have a program delivery function. Nor will it have a veto over the parliament or the executive government. I want to make one thing very clear. The government is here to facilitate and support what is needed to deliver a referendum. The Voice to Parliament is not the creation of the Labor Party, nor should the referendum be a campaign dictated by politicians. This is for the Australian people. The Aboriginal politicians here represent their parties and their diverse electorates. We are not the unified advocacy for First Nations that the Voice to Parliament will provide. If the referendum is to succeed— (Time expired) Western Australian Young Liberal Movement, Live Animal Exports 39 13:15 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia It gives me great pleasure today to rise to thank and acknowledge a young man—Cooper Bates—who was in my office last week undertaking a voluntary internship from the Young Liberal Movement of Western Australia. Cooper is currently studying a Bachelor of Commerce with a major in business law. He came into my office and undertook a variety of tasks for the week. He is a very intelligent and hardworking young man. To put it in colloquial terms from the bush, he has his head screwed on right. I'd also like to acknowledge Jacob Fowler, Hayden Tognela and the Young Liberal team in Western Australia for putting this program together. I was very happy to be the guinea pig in the program, but I know it will be rolled out more widely. Congratulations, Cooper. I also wish to speak briefly about the uncertainty that has been created in an industry in my home state of Western Australia. It's one that's very close to my own heart—the live export trade. As many would know, I come from a farming family and have participated in the sheep trade for many years. This is a very important industry to Western Australia. It's worth $143 million directly to the agriculture sector—and that's sheep alone. There are another $200 million in cattle exports. In total, across Australia it provides $1.6 billion of overall economic benefit to this country, it employs thousands of workers and it provides a stable floor price for sheep in the Western Australian market. It also provides a stable source of protein to very important trading partners overseas. They want to keep importing our sheep because they are of high quality and because the animal welfare standards are the best in the world. We're exporting not just livestock but also animal welfare standards. That is something I urge all in this place to remember when we are considering these issues going forward. Unfortunately, in my home state of Western Australia the industry is under a massive cloud. It's under a massive cloud because when this government came into power they said that they were going to stop the trade. This will result in a loss of jobs in Western Australia and a significant undermining of the sheepmeat industry in Western Australia. It will damage long-term trading relationships with very important trading partners. This, sadly, will not be limited to sheepmeat. This has the potential to also flow on to other agricultural and non-agricultural products, and that would be extremely damaging. Nations rely on Australia being a good trading partner. Nations rely on Australia as a source of food, fibre and minerals. If we, through government fiat, decide to close down particular industries then how can those trading partners have certainty in other similar industries and other aspects of agricultural trade that are so important? They will look elsewhere, because the principal responsibility of those nations is to feed their people, to make sure that they have the sources of high-quality protein that they need for their domestic markets. Australia has been a long-term supplier, particularly into the Middle East from Western Australia, and over those 30, 40 or 50 years we have seen constant improvements in animal welfare standards. The sheep trade, in particular, has demonstrated quite remarkable results, over a consistent period of time—not just over the last three years, since the Awassi Express incident, but over the last 20 years—constant improvement in animal welfare standards, constant improvement in mortality rates. That is something I would very much urge the new minister and government to keep in mind. Workplace Relations 39 13:20 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Sometimes I feel that we face two very different worlds of work. There's the world on the front page of the Australian, the world of employer organisations and old-time industrial relations club warriors fighting the workplace battles of last century, those who predict that any tweaking of workplace laws will mean massive industrial action and time travel, back to 30 years ago and 1980. They predict the end of the world as we know it. Today it's the Reserve Bank on the front page of the Australian. They're worrying about changes to the law making it harder to hire and fire. Then there's the real world of work—out there—the world where people actually go to work and try to have a life, where a third of workers are insecurely employed. Only 13 per cent have a collective agreement. We've seen falls in real wages for a decade, and there's more to come. Union density sits not at 60 per cent but at less than 15 per cent. Half of our workers are now women. Full-time workers are donating six weeks of unpaid overtime to their workplaces every year. It's a world where there's not enough child care, where so many workers have no say over their rosters. This is a tale of two worlds. The first is a world of mostly men in suits, a world of hired advocates and opponents of reform, singing from very old song sheets, paid to sow alarmism about the catastrophe of multi-enterprise bargaining and the imminent collapse of small businesses. Out there, in the real world of work, things are different. The issues are not strike action or too little flexibility in the hiring and firing of workers. The issues are: 'Who will look after my kids tomorrow while I go to work?' 'What hours have I got next week?' 'If I knock back this shift or try to swap it out will I get another one?' and 'How will I pay for petrol or child care if I don't get a pay rise?' I've been hearing a lot about this other world of work as we've taken our Select Committee on Work and Care around the country. Last week I was in Perth and Albany, hearing from locals, people with lived experience of putting together a job with the rest of their life. In Perth we heard from a professor of economics at UWA, Alison Preston. She spoke about the high, indeed huge, penalty—more than half of lifetime earnings—that hits carers over their lifetime as they put together jobs with the care of others. This is labour that is essential to our economy. Across Western Australia, childcare centres have waiting lists of between 150 and 200, and when they get that long you don't bother putting your name down, so we know there are more people out there looking for child care. People make the decision, instead, to give up work. Businesses, across the state, can't find the workers they need. If the roads that get us to work every day were functioning at 60 per cent of capacity, keeping people away from work like this, there'd be a national emergency declared. We would have a critical roads-to-work infrastructure fund of billions, fast. The failures in our work and care system are a failure of critical infrastructure. Yet our shouting, blokey, labour law debate—if we can dignify it with that name—is stuck on issues of industrial action, awash with horror stories about the possibility of workers bargaining together for a collective standard amongst like businesses. Meanwhile, millions of employers and workers in small and larger businesses are just getting on with the job. They navigate a failed and inflexible infrastructure—our care system, our leave system, labour law built for blokes last century. Amidst this, some workers and employers have great relationships. But, where workers rely on their legal rights to get some say over decent pay and how their work is organised, they have too little backup in our workplace laws. Even then, when they do have workplace laws that back them up, the laws are not enforced. Today, for example, we've heard from the Australia Institute that Australian workers are on average working six weeks unpaid overtime a year, costing over $92 billion in unpaid wages across the economy. Our workplace is increasingly in our phone in our back pocket, and it's competing with our kids for our time. This is wage theft, and we need to have labour law and labour arrangements that help us bargain around it and prevent wage theft. We need reform of our labour law, but it needs to leave the tired, old, overstated and alarmist myths of industrial action and business collapse behind and recognise the reality of men's, women's and children's lives now. We are not in 1980 anymore. We do not have a wife at home. We're in a world of low unionisation, job insecurity, more working carers, and wages suppressed through a lack of collective bargaining. Australian workers need improved workplace laws. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 40 13:26 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to follow the good senator and her call for workplace reform. I rise today to talk about a recent incident with workers in my home town of Cairns. Last Friday I joined a rally of workers in Cairns, Far North Queensland. These workers were up against a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation, one they had been bargaining with for three years. Svitzer operates tugboats to every major mainland port here in Australia. Workers at the company play an often unseen but critical role in our economy. In Cairns, Svitzer tugboat workers facilitate the safe passage of fuel, cruise ships and, critically, resources for residents of the cape and outer islands of the Torres Strait, in Far North Queensland. They ensure that Australians who live in remote Far North Queensland can continue to keep the lights on and put food on the table. They played a vital role for Australians throughout the pandemic and made record levels of profit for their employer while they were at it. Svitzer, the company I'm talking about here, made a record $21 billion in profit last year alone. It is owned by a global overseas company, and its CEO receives millions of dollars each year. But on Friday 18 November this year Svitzer notified its local workforce, who are among 582 workers across the country, of its intention to take industrial action against them. Yes, this is the industrial action that those opposite don't want to talk about: companies in this country that seek to lock out their own workforce. Svitzer planned to lock the gates on workers who were willing to work, simply because they had yet to reach an agreement on the workers' future terms and conditions. I showed up at the local rally in solidarity because these workers were willing and able to do their important job, because they play a critical role in maintaining the health and safety of my region and so many others in Australia, and because it's fundamentally bad for our economy and supply chains if this critical part of our transport infrastructure is halted, particularly just before Christmas. I showed up because I'm sick and tired of the way essential workers continue to be treated by those opposite and the interests they represent. Our government didn't just show up for these workers. We expressed grave concerns to the Fair Work Commission that this corporate industrial action would impart significant economic impact on our economy. The Fair Work Commission listened and ordered the action to be suspended. Last week these workers were looking down the barrel of locked gates. They were willing and able to return to work, and so they did. But Svitzer went as far as docking the pay of workers in preparation for the lockout, which didn't even go ahead. Now, because of their own solidarity and the support of the government, these workers are back at work, but this is evidence of a broken bargaining system. We have workers in our economy who are delivering essential services to people in our communities but are having to bargain with a global, multinational company for years and years to get a pay rise. This is what we are talking about when we talk about the bargaining system being broken. When a company seeks to lock out its own workforce, instead of sitting down at the bargaining table, we are talking about industrial action from a company against its own workers. This is a system we need to change. Workers have been trying to bargain for a pay rise, but they're not getting it. That is why we are delivering reform in this sector. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 It being 1.30, I'm now going to move to two-minute statements Premier of Victoria 41 13:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria As the former Victorian police commissioner Kel Glare said in Peta Credlin's excellent Sky News documentary The Cult of Daniel Andrews, never in his lifetime has he seen a government as corrupt as the one led by Premier Daniel Andrews. The premier is currently at the centre of four corruption inquiries. He has left behind a trail of corruption and cover-up. After turning Melbourne into the world's most locked down city, where police fired rubber bullets at protesters; after presiding over a health crisis and a broken 000 service that caused the deaths of 33 people or the hotel quarantine scandal that killed 801 Victorians; after driving our state into the ground with crippling debt and higher taxes, which threaten Victoria's future; after the gross mismanagement of infrastructure projects like the $4.7 billion West Gate Tunnel blowout; after the dirty deal with Prime Minister Albanese to funnel nearly all federal infrastructure money for Victoria, $2.2 billion, into the discredited Suburban Rail Loop, described today by Macroeconomics Advisor is 'the worst infrastructure project of all time', I say: don't let Victorian Labor get away with it. The only way to end the corruption, combat the cost-of-living crisis, fix our health system, pay down the debt, lower taxes, deliver real solutions for our great state is to vote Liberal-National. In the Geelong region, despite massive funding from the former coalition government, we've seen failure after failure from lacklustre local Labor MPs, who've taken their seats for granted, with vital projects promised by Labor pushed into the never-never—the women's and children's hospital, the rail duplication, the Grubb Road Ocean Grove safety upgrade, the Geelong convention centre. When local residents were locked out of the state, stranded in cars and caravan parks, these Labor MPs did nothing to bring them home. On behalf of the people of Victoria, I say: don't let Daniel Andrews get away with it. Shipping Australia Ltd 41 13:32 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm going to have a lot more to say about this issue, a lot more. On our waterfronts here in Australia there is white-collar crime going on. The international shipping companies are getting away with murder, and they're putting the cost of transport straight onto the trucking companies, who then have to pass it onto all of us out there in the shopping centres. The Productivity Commission have done an interim report. I can't wait for the final report. One of their recommendations says that terminal access charges and other fixed fees for delivering or collecting a container from a terminal should be regulated so that they can only be charged to shipping lines and not to transport operators. So guess what Shipping Australia Ltd have done? They've come out and declared war on the trucking industry, saying it's the truckers' fault that they're fleecing everyone! But they've finally been caught—those thieving international owned shipping companies, who do not pay one cent of tax in this nation—for exploiting the seafarers they use on our coastal trading. Let me tell you—I'm going to have a lot to say—if they want to fight with the trucking companies, then I'm going to fight against them. I'm going to join the trucking industry. Isn't that a shock? Very quickly I want to talk about the Robbed at Sea report. In its conclusion it says: Seafarers perform difficult, often dangerous work that is essential to the operation of global supply chains, delivering all the merchandise we take for granted in modern life. Yes, they do. But guess what? It's this same mob; it's Shipping Australia Ltd. It's all these low-life foreign companies who pay some of these poor seafarers at times $2 to $3 an hour. Can you believe the gall of Shipping Australia wanting to take on a fight because they've been uncovered? The emperor's clothes have just fallen off, and I'm rubbing my hands together, Shipping Australia. I've sent out an e-mail. Give me a call, because you don't even have a phone number on your website. Media 42 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales This week Media Diversity Australia has released a new report, titled Who Gets to Tell Australian Stories? 2.0. It looks at cultural and racial diversity in free-to-air television news. The picture the report paints is neither encouraging nor surprising. Truth be told, it's fairly damning. Among other insights, the report finds that journalists with an Anglo-Celtic background remain vastly overrepresented on television; that Australia's non-European population is at least 19 times greater than their representation on commercial networks; and that they could not identify a single Indigenous reporter or presenter at the Seven Network, which has the least on-air cultural diversity. It also finds an underrepresentation of cultural diversity on network boards and in TV news editorial leadership. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance have rightly given a fail to Australian TV news and current affairs on their cultural and racial diversity report card. The Australian media is still overwhelmingly white. This has enormous consequences for the way that issues are reported on and communities are portrayed. The defensive remarks of media management in response to the report, reported yesterday, were disappointing, to say the least. There is clearly resistance to acknowledging the depth of this problem, let alone getting serious about addressing it. The media monoculture is not just limited to TV news journalism, which was the focus of this report. Look at the list of this year's Walkley nominees. There are only a handful of journalists of colour across all media forms. There is much work to be done to put an end to a media culture that is still aggressively Anglo. Congratulations to Media Diversity Australia on the release of this really important report. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 42 13:36 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It has been my privilege this week to participate in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. Lieutenant Caitlin Watkins, an officer in the Royal Australian Navy, has been in my office this week, and she joins us in the advisers' box this afternoon. The program provides an opportunity for members of parliament to work with all levels of the Defence Force. This part of the program is reciprocated once a year with members of the military coming into parliament to see how we work in our offices. I take this opportunity to share Lieutenant Watkins's view of her time here in the parliament this week—her words, not mine: I wish to thank Parliament House and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force for this unique opportunity that has been afforded to a small handful of ADF personnel this week. I have been fortunate in the past to support visits of parliamentarians on Naval ships. I never truly comprehended the significance of a visit to an environment you know of but don't truly understand. It has allowed me to truly understand the level of sacrifice and commitment required by our parliamentarians—that it isn't just sitting week that the hard yards occur but an ongoing commitment and sacrifice to ensure that their local members feel that their voices are being heard. The time away from friends and family that each member commits. As a Defence member, I do truly understand that sacrifice— and she does. While I certainly see a greater level of military efficiency occurring within some discussions and meetings, I appreciate the level of passion that each member brings to the floor! I wish to thank all those who have allowed this to occur and who have been frank, honest and friendly in dealing with the numerous questions asked about parliament and their roles. It is reassuring as a member of Defence that parliament is filled with many members who care about their service personnel, have a genuine curiosity about the services, and do see that defence isn't just about physical capability but the personnel that operate and support to achieve the government's intent. Workplace Relations 42 13:38 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania With Black Friday approaching, it's a good opportunity to reflect on how little has changed since a year ago, when several senators spoke in this place about the Make Amazon Pay campaign. In 2021, Amazon advertised a position to undertake global surveillance of their workers' union activity. That's correct—they wanted to undertake global surveillance of their workers' union activity. A UNI Global Union report described Amazon's surveillance program as 'a grave threat to workplace democracy and workers' rights'. In the United States, complaints have been filed about multiple labour law breaches, after Amazon held compulsory anti-union meetings and stacked their workforce with anti-union members—all to defeat a ballot for union representation at their warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama. In Australia, Amazon has rolled out a gig economy delivery model called Amazon Flex. Amazon Flex drivers face wage theft, unsafe conditions and unfair sackings. Police have been called on Transport Workers Union officials with lawful rights to enter Amazon Flex premises for safety investigations. Fortunately, the Transport Workers Union won a case in New South Wales for Amazon Flex drivers to receive enforceable rates of pay. An Amazon worker in Sydney represented by the SDA recently received an out-of-court settlement after filing for unfair dismissal. She was called to a meeting two days after telling the company she was pregnant. At the meeting, she was told she was unsuccessful in her application for a permanent position because of low productivity and absences from work—claims she said were untrue. I commend the TWU and the SDA for standing up for Amazon workers. Amazon can afford to look after its worker's safety, pay them a decent wage, give them job security and treat them with respect. After all, this is a company that turned over $1 billion in Australia last year and paid less than $20 million in tax. (Time expired) Health Care 43 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I went and got a check up at the Heart Foundation today, and, before you start getting too upset and dragging out the tissues, I'm fine! Alright? I'm not ready to kick the bucket yet—just to put you at peace! In 2019, the Heart Foundation worked with parliamentarians to deliver an important reform for Aussie hearts: the introduction of a Medicare funded heart health check. Since then, over 360,000 Australians have seen their GPs to have their hearts checked, which is possibly the most important step they could take to prevent a heart attack or stroke. The heart health check Medicare item is now due to expire in June 2023, and this is why they need our help and our lobbying to ensure this is kept for Australians. Having a permanent heart health check Medicare item will ensure that risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or CVD, are detected and treated earlier. This will in turn save more lives and reduce the burden of this on the health system. Just to let you know: 1.2 million Australians have conditions related to heart or vascular disease or stroke. In 2018-19, there were 591,000 hospitalisations with cardiovascular disease—5.2 per cent of all hospitalisations. Cardiovascular disease caused 42,300 deaths in 2019, making up a quarter of all deaths in Australia. It costs $11.5 million a year for this service to be provided to Australians. Over a period of five years it has saved the economy $1.75 billion dollars, with people getting risk assessed in the first place with this check rather than trying to fix it up afterwards when they have heart attacks. I am calling on the parliament and the Labor government: please, if you can put $100 million into Aboriginal communities for climate change, then why can't we support all Australians with $11.5 million a year? (Time expired) First Nations Australians 43 13:42 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia For around 40 years, there has been a three-part test to confirm Indigeneity. In essence, the test requires demonstrating Aboriginal descent, Torres Strait Islander descent or both; identification as a person of that descent; and acceptance by the community in which the person lives as being of that descent. It makes provision for stolen generations. It's not perfect, but there is no evidence that it is broken, nor am I aware that it has become irrelevant. I'm alarmed at tinkering with this definition and its impact and consequences for program and service delivery for the people who need it most. There should be no place in government or in policy for a self-identification test or for fluidity in the definition depending on policy or program application. With self-identification, there's no validation and no accountability. It counts people who should not be counted, it relies on the box ticker having a moral compass and it risks greater access by charlatans to those special services designed for those who need it most. It fails, fails and fails every test. In the most recent ABS census, Australia asked who was Indigenous. With that, there was a 25 per cent increase since the previous census. Esteemed academics have described the national five per cent annual growth rate as astonishing, noting the growth was much faster than could be accounted for by births alone. That's possibly explained by the reply emails sent from ancestry tracing sites that tell people they are indeed Indigenous through a relative, where there is no lived connection, no lived experience, no life experience and the connection is not even for more than a maybe century. What should be occurring is accountability of the government, its agencies and community organisations, ensuring the bona fides of Indigenous claims. We better get it right before we ask Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to elect representatives to the Voice, should that be successful at referendum. Kennedy, Ms Elizabeth 44 13:44 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Today I pay tribute to early childhood educator and United Workers Union member Liz Kennedy. Liz passed away suddenly last week at the age of 59. Liz was a tireless advocate for early childhood educators and the children in their care. She was determined that every child should have access to the highest quality early learning possible and that every educator should be properly valued for their incredible work, including in their pay packet. Liz took every opportunity to advocate for her profession, including by publicly challenging comedian Dave Hughes to spend a day walking in her shoes after he said, live on radio, that early educators just play with children and change nappies. He took up her challenge, and let's just say he was suitably educated by Liz, by her fellow educators and by the children he was tasked to work with. Liz was rightly proud of her role, winning better pay as part of a Victorian union agreement with over 100 employers in the sector, and she wanted to see the benefits extended to all early educators. So, just two weeks ago, Liz was here in Parliament House to once again advocate for early educators to receive the recognition they deserve. While there's so much more to do in this place to make that happen, Liz's legacy lives on in the lives of all the children who she taught and nurtured and in the pride and the passion of educators, which she helped foster by standing up for her profession. My deepest sympathies go to her husband, Jim, and to her children, and to her colleagues and the families at Windsor Community Children's Centre. Vale, Liz. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 44 13:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I'm proud to be taking part in Raise Our Voice this week, in which many other MPs have taken part as well, amplifying the voices of young people from across my state of Queensland about the things that matter to them. Today I'll share the words of Abiageal Maher, a year 6 student at Cannonvale State School in North Queensland. Abby says: I am writing to you today because I am worried about the amount of people living without a home. This is a problem not only in the Whitsundays but across all of Australia. In the Whitsundays it is estimated that children make up almost half of the area's homeless community. The 2016 census showed that there were more than 116,000 people living on the streets in Australia. The effects of covid-19 has increased the amount of homeless people and the cost of housing. This issue really concerns me and we need to find a solution. I am asking for you to help encourage the following actions: 1. Build cheaper houses that more people can afford 2. Build temporary houses to bring people off the streets 3. Create a government housing plan for cheaper housing With these ideas I am hoping you can make something happen! Thanks to Abby, who's 11. The Greens hear you. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should be without a home, experiencing homelessness or even experiencing housing stress. We urgently need a serious investment in social and affordable housing, as well as rent caps, so that everyone has got a safe, accessible, liveable place to call home. So thank you, Abby, for your thoughtful contribution and for the care that you're showing for your community at the tender age of 11. We'll be working hard in this term of parliament to find solutions and indeed, as you have asked, make something happen. Victoria State Election 44 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The proposition facing Victorians this Saturday is a simple one: do we reward the Premier, Daniel Andrews, with a third term, or do we not? It is an important question, because, as everybody knows, you get what you reward. If you reward corruption, you can expect more corruption. If you reward lies, you can expect more lies. If you reward incompetence, you can expect more incompetence. A vote for Premier Daniel Andrews on Saturday will only serve to reward the worst premier in Australia's recent history. And that's saying something, because, as far as history goes with premiers, there have been some doozies. But Premier Dan Andrews is in a league of his own, with the Belt and Road Initiative with the CCP, triple 0 waiting times, the world's longest lockdown and multiple IBAC corruption inquiries. How many? Five! That's how many. Any one of those things on their own is enough of a reason to kick Premier Daniel Andrews and his failed government to the kerb. Taken together, though, they are failings so epic that future generations will study this period of Victorian history as a warning of what can happen when stupidity is rewarded at the ballot box. Never again. When Victorians go to the polls on Saturday they should not reward Premier Daniel Andrews with more time to destroy Victoria. Victorians must not reward incompetence; they must punish it. Victorians must not embolden corruption. We must cut it out like the cancer that it is. Victorians must not honour a dishonourable man by electing him for a third time to the highest office in our state. Victoria deserves better, and, let's face it, anything—anything—is better than Premier Dan Andrews. Sack Dan Andrews! Australian Building and Construction Commission 45 13:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland There were two extraordinarily important documents that were tabled in the Senate this week. They demonstrate without doubt that the last thing the Senate should do next week is abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Those two documents were the annual report of the Australian Building and Construction Commission for the year ended 30 June 2022 and their most recent quarterly report on their operations. I want to refer to three points with respect to these documents. The first, on page 36, gives you everything you need to know about why we need the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and that is this: 90 per cent of the penalties imposed between 2 December 2016 and 30 June 2022 went to the CFMEU construction division. The unlawful behaviour of the CFMEU construction division is the problem. Penalties to other unions were only three per cent. There is a problem with the CFMEU construction division. Second point: in the annual report His Honour Justice Logan, a Queensland justice, is quoted as saying with respect to the CFMEU: The time when enough was enough in relation to compliance with the law by this union has well and truly passed. That's on page 40 of the annual report. Is that the sort of situation in which you would actually abolish the cop on the watch in the construction industry in this country? Lastly, I turned to my home state of Queensland. Queensland in terms of new investigations launched by the ABCC for the last year topped the nation with 51. The next in line was Victoria with 44, so for Queenslanders the last thing we should do is abolish the ABCC. Woolagoodja, Mr Yornadaiyn 45 13:52 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Today I rise to acknowledge and pay respect to Yornadaiyn Woolagoodja, or Yorna as he was called. Yorna was a beloved Mowanjum elder and talented artist whose art featured at the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Yorna was born on country. His father found his Woongudd spirit in the ocean at a place called Yornadaiyn, a whirlpool where two tides meet. Yorna was the spirit of the whirlpool. From the beginning of his life Yorna was enmeshed in negotiating the meeting of two tides, his cultural world and the world of the wider public. He lived out his early years on country and learnt from his ancestors. This was explored in his autobiography, 'I lived my own life'. Yorna's voice remains with us through his book and other artworks. Yorna was also known for his understated and quiet presence, his dignity which drew people to him and his power as a person and a teacher that was founded on the unassuming and humble way he engaged with people. Throughout his life Yorna's energy and wisdom impacted the lives of many people across the country. He was committed to his family and his Wandjina Woongudd community. He dedicated his time to enabling young generations to visit, love and connect to their country, to be proud of their culture and traditions, to be prepared for the future and to be respected by others in their community. His encouragement gave confidence and pride to many young First Nations people. Yorna also undertook major recording projects, established tourism ventures, participated in cultural heritage protection activities and created his own practice. He was the first chairman of the Mowanjum Artists Centre and participated in numerous First Nations organisations such as the Mowanjum Artists Spirits of the Wandjina Aboriginal Corporation and Mowanjum Aboriginal Community and several other cultural organisations across the Kimberley. Thank you, Yorna, may you rest in peace and your legacy live on forever. Australian Film Industry 45 13:54 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I bet when you think about movies you don't really think about regional Australia. But regional Australia features extensively in a lot of Australian movies. The Merger, about a cash-strapped Aussie Rules club, was found and Wagga Wagga. The Dressmaker, with the fantastic Kate Winslet, was filmed in Jerilderie. Several of the Mad Max films were filmed around Broken Hill and Silverton. On television, the show Doctor Doctor was filmed in Mudgee, my old hometown. The Flying Doctors was filmed in Broken Hill. Regional Australia provides a crucial aspect of our screen and film industry, and that industry needs our support. Unlike free-to-air broadcasters, the streaming services don't have any requirements to ensure they make and support Australian content. To be fair, the streamers are investing in Australian content, and I thank them and commend them for doing so, but I believe they can do more. They can do more to support our industry, which supports our communities and our economy. Each of those films or TV series that I mentioned earlier, when they come to a community, they bring their dollars. They shop at the local cafe. They go to the hardware store to buy their hardware. They use local tradies. Sometimes they use the local hairdressers. And I know from personal experience that they use locals as extras in their scenes. We need to get behind our screen industry and look at what more we can do to make sure that our stories continue to be shown on our screens. Emergency Services 46 13:56 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Today I acknowledge and thank the continued work of our state emergency services, our country fire services and their dedicated volunteers who are working tirelessly to assist communities impacted by floods across Australia. In my home state of South Australia, we have a major emergency declared as floodwaters in the Murray River content to rise, with the potential for flows to reach 220 gigalitres a day by early December. The Murray River will be inundated in the worst-case scenario under those numbers, with a real possibility of a second flood peak in December and into early January. Already, we have dedicated volunteers who have been deployed to the flood-affected areas of South Australia, and I could not be more grateful for the commitment that they have made to these communities. Our local residents are preparing to fight to protect their properties, their businesses and the community, but they also rely on the Herculean efforts of our emergency services who work to support our communities at risk. My heart goes out to those facing loss, hardship, extreme stress and uncertainty as the flooding continues. Disaster recovery funding arrangements are now in place to help with counter-disaster operations and with clean-up activities. Both state and the federal governments have committed to support those communities. We have almost 11½ thousand sandbags going into the Riverland over the weekend, and about 110 tons of sand each day. Our amazing volunteers are responding so quickly and, after the heavy rainfall, the extreme winds, the stormy conditions and the uncertainty, the dedication that all of these people have shown throughout these natural disasters and emergencies plays a vital role in keeping our communities and our country safe. World Heritage Convention 46 13:59 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland This week we celebrate 50 years of the World Heritage Convention adopted by the General Assembly of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. There are now 194 parties to this convention—nearly all of the countries in the world. Australia was one of the first countries to ratify the convention in 1974, and now has 20 properties on the list. Our government is committed to continuing to support the credibility and continuation of the World Heritage List system, and that is why we committed in our budget last month $14.7 million to support Australia's First Nations culture and World Heritage. We are also ensuring we are delivering $1.2 billion to protect and restore the Great Barrier Reef to 2030. This includes an additional $204 million. That's because, on this side of the chamber, we are not fighting about whether climate change is real; we are fighting for the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for senators' statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 46 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. On page 52 of the government's regulatory impact statement for the industrial relations bill, when trying to work out the bargaining cost for medium businesses, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations calculates that $273,700 divided by 15.2 is $12,878. Can you, please, confirm that the correct figure should be $18,006? 14:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I knew if I waited long enough the shadow minister for industrial relations would be allowed to ask a question about industrial relations. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 It is always good to have a question about industrial relations from the former minister whose office led a police raid on union offices and who presided over conflict in the industrial relations system and wants to drag us back into that conflict situation. It's always good to get a question about IR from the whiteboard warrior over there, Senator Cash. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Watt, I will direct you to Senator Cash's question. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash, it is always good to hear from you. The one thing I can guarantee is that, when Senator Cash opens her mouth about industrial relations, it's going to be a scarce campaign based on lies—and she is doing it yet again. The actual facts here— Senator Cash I0M I have a point of order on relevance, President. You have already directed the minister to my question. I ask that you again draw his attention to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will, indeed, direct the minister to your question. Senator WATT 245759 In fact, I was directly answering Senator Cash's question by referring to the fact that yet again she was coming out with a scare campaign based on lies. That was the question. Opposition senators int erjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. If I direct the minister back to the question, I expect those that asked the question to at least be quiet so we can all hear the answer. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, indeed, you gave two directions, which I welcomed, to the minister back to the question. Each time, he has flouted that by continuing with the theme of simply reflecting upon the opposition rather than dealing with the very specific, relevant detail of the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I had just directed the minister back to the question and there was so much noise on my left I couldn't even tell you what the minister said. He is well aware that I've directed him twice. If we can have quiet, we might all be able to hear the answer. Senator WATT 245759 As opposed to what Senator Cash is saying, the facts here are that small businesses will be excluded from the single-interest stream and so will not be forced to bargain— The 10000 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator WATT 245759 I'm trying to explain— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash? Senator Cash I0M The point of order is again on relevance. I asked about the bargaining cost for medium businesses. You clearly don't even know that a small, medium or large business— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, that is a debating point. It's not point of order. Senator WATT 245759 Small businesses will have access to the cooperative workplaces stream. This point comes across from— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 When you have quite finished on my left, you have one of your own senators on her feet! Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance, it may be that the shadow minister could table the regulatory impact statement— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that is not a debating point. Please resume your seat. Senator WATT 245759 Small businesses will have access to the cooperative workplaces stream, which is designed to be a low-cost option for businesses without a dedicated human resources capacity. We've seen over the last 24 hours Senator Cash hyperventilating about information within this RIS. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that. Senator WATT 245759 I will withdraw 'hyperventilating'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator WATT 245759 We have seen Senator Cash going on and on and on as she is prone to do about information contained in the RIS and trying to argue that this shows that small businesses will be subject to a major cost when in actual fact most of them will have access to the cooperative workplaces stream, which is a low-cost option that most of them will take advantage of. It's more misrepresentation and scare-campaigning from the opposition. (Time expired) 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can you also confirm that as a result of the mistake—in other words, the RIS is wrong—the total bargaining cost for medium businesses is actually much higher, at over $80,000, and not the $75,148 according to your own government's formula? 14:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, what we continually see from Senator Cash and her colleagues in the coalition is a misrepresentation of how the bargaining system will work under the government. Senator Cash I0M Your RIS is wrong. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Cash, you had barely asked the question before I called the minister to his feet, and there was so much noise that I was having trouble hearing him. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, we continually see Senator Cash and her colleagues seize on facts and figures and then distort what they actually mean. The reality is that under the government's proposal most small businesses—and I know you're asking about medium-sized businesses—will have access to the cooperative workplaces stream. There are various other routes for medium-sized businesses to take advantage of that will not include the kinds of costs that the opposition is out there trying to scare people about. All through this debate we have seen scare campaign after scare campaign from the opposition. First of all, it was going to ruin the mining industry, and then everyone realised that it wasn't going to apply to most of the mining industry. Then it was going to promote strikes, when in actual fact there are restrictions on strikes. Everything we've heard from the coalition is a scare campaign and blatantly wrong. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Is the figure of $12,878, the bargaining cost for medium businesses—as set out in the government's regulatory impact statement—right or wrong? 14:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course, I can only go off the figures that are in the RIS—that is what they're for. But the point is that in every step of this debate we have seen people from the coalition seize on figures and then misrepresent what they actually stand for. Everything we have heard from the coalition has been a misrepresentation of what the government is proposing to do through this multi-employer bargaining and the various other changes— Opposition senators interjecting — The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please resume your seat, Senator Watt. Senator Cash I0M Sit down! Senator WATT 245759 It's not up to you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, that's not helpful. I am asking those on my left to allow the minister to answer in silence. Senator Cash I0M Please do, because— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've just drawn your attention to the noise in the chamber. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, everything we have heard from the opposition in this debate is a misrepresentation and is part of a scare campaign. The reason for that is that they will stop at absolutely nothing to stop wages from growing. They were a 10-year government that kept wages and productivity deliberately low, and they are now fighting to the death to stop changes being made to our industrial relations system that will actually deliver better wages for workers and better productivity for businesses. That's what this is really about: the coalition wants to keep the old system in place that kept wages low and kept productivity low. (Time expired) Cost of Living 48 14:08 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government is supporting Australian households during these challenging economic times? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for the question. Senator Payman is right: in these challenging times, what Australians needed from their government was a budget that was responsible, that was right for the times and that readied us for the future. The primary focus of the budget, aside from delivering on our commitments to the Australian people, is managing the inflationary pressures that Australians are experiencing right now. That's why at the heart of the budget is our five-point plan for cost-of-living relief to provide some support which delivers an economic dividend but doesn't put extra pressure on inflation. The hard reality is that, after nearly a decade of division, denial and delay, our economy isn't as strong or resilient as we need it to be for the challenges we face. But our budget begins to turn that around by investing in the capabilities of our people and the capacity of the economy, with fee-free TAFE and more university places; the National Reconstruction Fund for new, well-paid jobs in new industries; and by investing in cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy to deal with the extraordinary energy market mess that we inherited. And the budget pays for things that Australians value the most: better health care, better Medicare and better aged care. Above all, the budget marked the end of a wasted decade—a decade where we saw energy chaos, an aged-care crisis, a skills shortage, stagnant wages and a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it. That's the mess that we inherited and the mess we're cleaning up in this budget with those key measures which will go to investing in the productive side of our economy by training people in the skills they need for the future, by creating opportunities, by supporting new industries where they need an extra hand and by getting the transformation to a decarbonised economy on the right foot. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary question. 14:10 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Can the minister outline how the budget will ease cost-of-living pressures for households? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We are easing the cost-of-living pressure on households by investing in cheaper child care for more than 1.2 million families, important legislation that passed this chamber yesterday and which has also been dealt with in the House this morning. This will help more people, overwhelmingly women, back into the workforce if they choose to do so. It's enough to increase the number of full-time workers by an extra 37,000. We're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026 and making medicines cheaper with the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. We're investing in more affordable housing, with tens of thousands of new social and affordable homes, more support for people to buy their own home and a new National Housing Accord. This will bring governments and the private sector together to build the homes that we desperately need. Again, after a decade of neglect the Commonwealth is back at the table on housing and wanting to work in partnership with state and territory colleagues and private proprietors to deliver the housing options that Australians need. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary question. 14:12 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Can the minister outline why it's important that the government provides support that is responsible and which does not put additional pressure on inflation? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for her supplementary question. The budget was calibrated carefully to deal with the inflation challenging our economy. We knew we had to act differently from our predecessors to avoid making the inflation problem in our economy worse and forcing the RBA to go even harder on interest rates. The October budget returned $114 billion of tax upgrades to the budget over the forward estimates. This is the government making a decision to return 99 per cent of the upward tax revisions for the next two years, when the inflation challenge is most severe, and 92 per cent over the forward estimates. This compares to the Howard-Costello government's average of around 30 per cent of the tax upgrades, and the former government's average of around 40 per cent. It was an important decision that we made. Treasury has analysed the economic impact of the overall revenue upgrades in the October budget—instead of being transferred to households rather than being returned to the budget—and that would have put significant pressure on inflation. Workplace Relations 49 14:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The regulatory impact statement for the government's industrial relations legislation says that the department has costed marketing consultants by using an article entitled 'How much should I charge as a consultant in Australia?' from a website called authentic.com.au. The author of that article is described on the website as: A cross between business strategist, modern day spiritual healer, and self-development expert, Benjamin J Harvey is as comfortable working with Shamans to Strategists, Psychics to Sales Reps, Healers to Home Makers, Buddhists to Businessmen and Meditators to Mediators. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGRATH 217241 Do you think that's an acceptable way to calculate such costings? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not going to call the minister until there's silence! And I expect senators to listen in silence. Minister Watt. 14:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I am aware of this incident, and I'm also aware that a departmental spokesperson from the department has already addressed this point by saying that the link was used as part of an internal desktop review which used a range of online sources to determine an indicative cost as part of the RIS. This included websites such as the AFR. Do you have an issue with that one? It included Payscale. Do you have an issue with that one? It included Talent.com and LinkedIn. Do you have issues with those as well? The departmental spokesperson has gone on to say that it was incorrect to use the link as being the only source referenced in that section of the RIS. The department apologises— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, would you resume your seat, please. Order, Senator Cash and Senator Canavan, when I'm calling the Senate to order. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I didn't know the opposition objected to the AFRand LinkedIn and Talent.com and Payscale and things like that, but apparently they do. The truth here is that the opposition—what they really object to is any change to an industrial relations system that has kept wages low, kept productivity low and impeded economic growth. That's what— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Please continue, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 There is nothing that gets the coalition more excited than keeping wages low. Senator Cash I0M A psychic is giving him information. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Seriously, Senator Cash. I'd just called the chamber to order, and the very minute the senator gets back on his feet to answer the question you interject, very loudly, once again. I will ask you to listen in quiet. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you. As I say, there is nothing that gets the coalition going more than the prospect of keeping wages low. That's what they did for the 10 years they were in government, and that's what they're determined to do—even though they lost the last election, even when our government got a mandate to get wages moving again. This mob over here are so determined to hold workers back from getting a pay rise that they will continually oppose it. They will come up with scare campaign after scare campaign, anything at all, to keep wages low. And why? Because it was a deliberate feature of their economic policy, and they're determined to pursue that in opposition just as they did it for 10 years in government. Do you know what will actually make our economy stronger? It is higher wages and higher productivity. Do you know how we're going to do that? By delivering these industrial relations reforms that the people of Australia voted for and this mob still haven't woken up to, and they're pursuing the old fights and the old conflict to hold wages low. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, a first supplementary question? 14:17 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The same regulatory impact statement on page 46 references an article entitled 'How much do payroll services cost?' on a website called bark.com, which lists its most popular services as dog and pet grooming, dog training, dog walking, life coaching, limousine hire, magicians and private investigators. Is this an acceptable source for a government department to use to calculate bargaining costs for businesses? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I was saying in my previous answer, the departmental spokesperson has acknowledged that it was incorrect to use the link as being the only source referenced in that section of the RIS. However, as I've already said, the work that the department did also included the AFR, Payscale, Talent.com, and LinkedIn and, frankly, it probably would have been more wise of the department to reference those ones rather than— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, you've asked your question. I would expect you to listen in silence along with Senator Cash and Senator Birmingham. Please continue, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 Frankly, I think it would have been a better idea for the department to use some of those other more reputable sources on its website rather than the one that they chose to do. They've apologised for their error, but that doesn't deny the fact that in doing this work they relied on a number of other reputable sources—unless if we're learning today that the opposition also has problem with the AFR, LinkedIn and the other various sites that I used. But, as I say, we're going to hear this all week. We're going to hear attack after attack from the coalition on wage rises, despite the fact that the Australian people voted for them. Frankly, I think it would be a— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, Senator Watt keeps misleading the chamber with his reference to what the Australian people voted for. The bill he's talking about, the people didn't— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. That is not a point of order. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU President, I would ask you to not allow the leader to continue to debate a point when there is no point of order. I know he wants to throw some meat to the backbench on an ideological issue, but he knows that is not a point of order. You ought to sit him down, President. My submission is you ought to sit him down earlier. The PRESIDENT 112096 I would have sat Senator Birmingham down, but there was so much disorder in the chamber he could not hear me. I would once again ask all senators to refrain from shouting out. It's not a football match; it is the Senate chamber, where a little bit of rowdiness is fine but not the pitch at which it is currently being delivered. Senator WATT 245759 I know it hurts the opposition to realise that the Australian people voted for wages to get moving again. But they did, and we're doing it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, a second supplementary? 14:20 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Why won't the minister take responsibility for the so-called mistakes in the RIS document, instead of blaming junior departmental officials? Take responsibility. Shame on you! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I would ask you to be silent. You've asked your question. Senator Cash, I would ask you to be silent. Senator Wong, I will ask you to be silent as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I just directed you to be quiet. 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I was saying in my earlier answers, a departmental spokesperson has taken responsibility for that error, and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I'm asking you to be quiet as well. Senator WATT 245759 In addition to the department taking responsibility, I have taken responsibility as the minister responsible by saying, frankly, I think that was the wrong thing to do. But isn't it ironic that the party of 'no hoses' is here lecturing us about taking responsibility. We endured years of the former Prime Minister— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Well, we've learned what really gets these people going: it's cutting wages, and it's taking responsibility. They're the things that they get wound up about. The party that sat by under a Prime Minister whose only famous quote was that he didn't hold a hose now want to come and talk to us about taking responsibility? Over the entire three years or four years that Scott Morrison was the Prime Minister of this country there's only one thing he took responsibility for, and do you know what it was? It was keeping wages low. That's what he took responsibility for, because that was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. That's taking responsibility for keeping wages low. We're going to do the opposite. We're going to get wages moving again, and we're going to lift productivity while we're at it. (Time expired) Racism 51 14:23 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Youth, Senator Watt. In recent weeks there have been numerous violent attacks against young First Nations people in this country. Our communities are scared. Our children are feeling unsafe. There has been little or no response by state, territory and federal governments. Why is addressing racial violence not a priority for this government? 14:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I don't think it's fair for Senator Thorpe to suggest that this government doesn't take these issues seriously. I would like to think that every member of this chamber has been appalled by some of the racial violence and the alleged murder, bearing in mind that there's a process yet to be gone through, particularly in relation to the incident in Perth, which was awful. There's no other word for it, and it shouldn't be happening in Australia. It shouldn't have happened in Australia at any period of our history, and it certainly shouldn't be happening now. But it's not just me who's been saying this on behalf of the government. I well remember the multiple comments that the Prime Minister has made in recent weeks about these acts of racial violence. As I said, I would hope that that is a position that is shared by all members of this chamber. I'm sure, Senator Thorpe, you are aware of the range of actions that this government is taking on matters involving youth justice, which disturbingly in this day and age continues to have a disproportionate involvement of young First Nations people. As a country we haven't done a good enough job of youth justice for young Indigenous people, and they are being incarcerated at a far higher rate than should be acceptable to any of us in this country. But I do believe that this is an issue that the government takes seriously. We had money in the most recent budget to expand the range of services around youth justice, particularly in relation to young First Nations people. The PRESIDENT 112096 A point of order, Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 It is relevance. My question is: why is addressing—not hand-on-heart feelings and understanding how hard it is for us—or how is or what is the government doing— The 10000 Senator Thorpe, it's not appropriate to repeat the question. You've made a point of order indicating to me that you believe the minister isn't being relevant. I don't agree with the point of order. The minister is being relevant, and I would ask him to continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, there is a range of programs that our government funded through the recent budget around youth justice programs for First Nations people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Another point of order, Senator Thorpe? Senator Tho 280304 This is not about youth justice. This is about racial violence. It's not about the black kids themselves— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe— Senator Thorpe 280304 It's about the racists that are doing it. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's a debating point. You had a wideranging question. As I indicated to you on your previous point of order, the minister is being relevant. Please continue, Minister. Senator Thorpe 280304 It's not about youth justice; it's about racists. Senator WATT 245759 I was coming to that, Senator Thorpe. In addition to the programs that we have in relation to youth justice, I think there have been a number of figures in this government who have been very vocal about racial violence in our country being completely unacceptable, and I'm happy to take advice from the relevant ministers as to what more we might be doing in that regard. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary. 14:27 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria If you claim this is important—and we keep hearing all the words but we see no action—then what is the government doing to ensure that First Nations children in so-called Australia are kept safe from these racially motivated attacks and are able to live out their birthright? 14:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I was saying towards the end of my last answer, this government is undertaking a range of work in relation to racism and racist violence within our community. For instance, I'm aware that the Human Rights Commission is doing some work in this regard that is being supported by this government, and there is a range of other departments within our government that are doing similar work. I know it's not directly relevant to the point that you're making, but the Department of Home Affairs is doing work in this space in relation to racism, particularly against migrant Australians. Again, I accept that it's a different point, but it's a similar issue about how we are tackling racism within the community. That's something that we intend to do a lot more of because we don't want to see First Nations people exposed to the kind of violence that we have seen of late. All I can do is repeat the fact that I think we all found that disturbing, and we need to do much better as a country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary. 14:28 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Given that you won't support raising the age of legal responsibility to 14 and that you've shown that you're more focused on locking up kids than keeping them safe, how are you addressing systemic racism in police forces and government agencies that impacts so heavily on First Nations children? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland On the matter that you began with, Senator Thorpe, about the age of criminal responsibility, the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, has made that a standing item for discussion and action at the ministerial council of all attorneys-general around the country. There are some states that are more willing than others to look at this issue and to do something about this issue. I know that the Northern Territory is currently doing something about the issue, but there are other states that aren't moving as quickly. But the fact is that the Attorney-General has got this on the agenda at every meeting of his colleagues, and that demonstrates that that's something that we want to be doing. Senator Thorpe 280304 We want action. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Thorpe, the age of criminal responsibility is a matter for states to determine. Senator Thorpe 280304 And leadership. Senator WATT 245759 We are demonstrating leadership by putting it on the agenda for every ministerial council meeting. That is how Commonwealth governments exercise leadership—by putting it on the agenda to put pressure on the states to start thinking about these issues more. (Time expired) Trade 53 14:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The government is making significant progress to diversify trade opportunities for Australian businesses. Can the minister provide an update on the status of Australia's trade agreements with the United Kingdom and India? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley once again for her deep interest in this subject area. It is a subject that is so important to her home state of Tasmania. It's important to say that, after almost a decade of the Liberal government, Australia was more dependent than ever on a single market for our exports. To overcome this predicament the Albanese Labor government is progressing a trade policy agenda that creates opportunities for Australian businesses to gain new market access in major markets. This includes implementing trade agreements with two of our major trading partners: India and the United Kingdom. The Liberal government dropped the ball by failing to conclude parliamentary processes to implement the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. In contrast, this government took an important step yesterday, deepening and diversifying our trading relations with India and the United Kingdom, by passing legislation to implement these trade agreements. We want to continue to work closely with the United Kingdom and the Indian governments. I've been in contact with both of those governments overnight to ensure that all of the processes that we commenced and completed yesterday—we're just waiting for royal assent—everything we have done on our side to complete these processes, is done on the other side. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a first supplementary question? 14:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania A trade agreement with the European Union will further expand opportunities for Australian businesses, including in the agriculture sector. Can the minister provide an update on the progress of the trade negotiations with the EU? Senator Birming H6X What are you going to do with prosecco, Don? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia At least I'm prepared to meet with them and discuss issues with them, which you never ever did. I met with them last night. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! When there is quiet I will ask the minister to continue his answer. Senator Henderson ZN4 Are you going to go after pizza next? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume—or Senator Henderson. Sorry, Senator Hume. There's so much noise it's hard to tell. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N President, thank you for that protection. I start by thanking Senator Polley once again for that insightful question. Despite many years of negotiations, the Liberal government failed to land a trade deal with the European Union. Why was that? Why did you fail to land an agreement? Why did New Zealand get ahead of us with a free trade agreement? Because of the former Morrison government's disrespectful approach to a close ally. I'm pleased to say that negotiations are back on track, and discussions have occurred with the wonderful prosecco producers. Both Australia and the EU— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a second supplementary question? 14:34 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Minister, the World Trade Organization rules underpin global trade and trade agreements. I understand that you met with the WTO director-general yesterday. Can you give the Senate an update on that engagement? 14:34 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley once again for her question. Yes, you're right, yesterday I had a great meeting with the director-general. It was a very warm and friendly meeting. Of course, she's a great friend of our former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillard. Her visit provided an opportunity to discuss how we can continue to work together to address the challenges facing the multilateral trading system. A key issue discussed was the need to ensure that we have a properly-functioning dispute-settlement system. I also emphasised the importance of addressing trade-distorting agricultural subsidies. In recognition of the importance of the WTO to Australia's economic resilience, Australia committed $5 million to help developing countries and less-developed countries access to the benefits of WTO membership. (Time expired) Australia Post 54 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. In 2018, then Australia Post CEO, Christine Holgate, secured a deal with the CBA, NAB and Westpac to pay $20 million each every year as a representation fee to serve their customers at Bank@Post. Will the minister confirm that this fee has been halved in the new agreement to $10 million a year each? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson, for that question. I will have to take the precise details of that question on notice; I don't have that information to hand. But I know that many Australians right around Australia, particularly in rural and regional areas, depend very heavily on Australia Post services. That's something we very much support. For instance, we stood very much against the— Senator Rennick 283596 No you don't, you privatise everything! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Senato 245759 Ah, Senator Rennick gets a go. His own side won't give him a go so he has to have a go during Senator Hanson's question. What I was actually about to say, prior to Senator Rennick's interjection, was that Labor has always stood against the privatisation of Australia Post, for example. But the nature of Australia Post's services is changing over the years. I know that they're increasingly moving towards parcel services rather than postage, but they do provide a vital service to rural and regional areas in particular—as well as servicing our cities increasingly with the parcel business that they have been operating. Senator Hanson, I'm happy to come back to you on notice with the answer to your specific question as soon as I get those details. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a first supplementary question. 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Thank you very much. I appreciate that you don't know the answer to that, but I have been told on good advice that it is $10 million a year. A lot of these post offices actually rely on the money that they're making from that $20 million a year—it makes them viable and able to keep their doors open. The banks are making billions of dollars in profit a year. If this is the case, and they have actually dropped to $10 million a year, what will your government do to address this? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson. Obviously, a number of these types of matters are ultimately decisions for the board of Australia Post rather than for the government of the day, because it does have a degree of independence. However, we are concerned about the number of outlets that are available, particularly in rural and regional areas, and I know that this is an issue that you've taken up in the past, Senator Hanson. Currently, Australia Post, for instance, has about 4,300 retail outlets across the country and it has a legislated net requirement to maintain at least 4,000 retail outlets. As I was saying, I recognise—and I think that everyone in our government recognises—that these post offices play a key role in communities around Australia. As I've already reflected, this is particularly true in regional Australia, where we often find that it's the Australia Post outlets which also serve as the bank and even offer a range of government services. I know that these issues— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a second supplementary question. 14:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I don't know if you're aware of this, but since the beginning of 2021 more than 200 branches of the big four banks have closed or have been announced as closing, mostly in regional areas, with customers shunted to bank at Australia Post outlets. What is your government going to do to counteract bank closures and the lack of staff happening across the country, mainly in rural and regional areas? Is the government actually going to start addressing this, pull the banks into line and say that they must provide the services necessary for Australians? 14:39 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): I think we're probably straying outside the responsibilities I have as a representing minister, let alone as the minister, but I'll do my best to answer the question. Again, I am definitely concerned about the decreasing number of branches that we see in retail banks across country areas in Australia, and I guess I particularly now see that through my role as the agriculture minister. It was only last week that I had a conversation in rural South Australia—I'm pretty sure the conversation happened there—about the impacts of bank closures in those communities and how it places real pressure on those communities when they can't access those services. Actually, I remember now; it was Moree where I was having the conversation. So it is a problem. I think banks do have a community obligation to provide services to their customers. As we see those banks withdraw, that does also put more pressure on Australia Post outlets. I know that's the fundamental point you're trying to make, but I'll come back to you with some more answers. Workplace Relations 55 14:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I refer to the now Treasurer's comments on 21 November 2021, where the Treasurer said industry-wide bargaining was 'not part of our policy'. Given the government is trying to introduce industry-wide bargaining by stealth in its extreme industrial relations legislation, will the minister apologise to the Australian people for this broken promise? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What do you know? It's 2.42 pm on a Wednesday— A government senator: On a broadcast day! Senator WATT 245759 on a broadcast day—and it's another false scare campaign about IR. Is this the third we've had so far? I've lost track of just how many we've had in question time today. I'm not sure whether Senator Brockman knows that he is misleading people with what he's saying, but I'm here to help him. There is a distinction between industry-wide bargaining and multi-employer bargaining. Industry-wide bargaining involves a whole industry; multi-employer bargaining involves multiple employers. They are different things. We are in favour of allowing employers and employees, where they choose, to pursue multi-employer bargaining. That is not the same as industry-wide bargaining. It's in the name. Again, it's just another false scare campaign from an opposition that is— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, your constant interjections are disorderly, as are yours, Senator Cash. I would ask you to listen quietly. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I'm looking forward to the supplementary questions because we might get to our fourth and fifth scare campaigns in one question time alone. This one is yet another one that is completely baseless and completely misunderstands how industrial relations actually works in this country. What we've got is a coalition that is so intent on running scare campaigns to stop wages rising that they are clutching at straws, making things up and misinterpreting how their own laws actually work in order to throw mud at a government that is trying to do something about wage rises. It's actually a little bit sad to watch the coalition so completely misunderstand how industrial relations works that they would be making up these kinds of things. Anyone could just look at how those words operate—industry-wide; multi-employer. They're actually kind of different concepts. Do you know what? Industry-wide bargaining is also different to single-interest bargaining, which is another thing that we're providing for. They are completely different concepts. What you're talking about is not part of the government's agenda. It never has been part of the government's agenda. The only agenda this government has is to get wages moving again. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman, your first supplementary question? 14:43 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia A survey of businesses by the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry has found that nine in 10 businesses would be damaged by measures in the Albanese government's extreme industrial relations bill and four in five would be damaged by multi-employer bargaining. Businesses are saying it will make it harder to run a business and employ Australians. It's not a scare campaign; they're scared. Why is the government turning its back on job creators in Western Australia? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister, I'm going to ask senators on my left and right to be silent while the minister answers the question. Minister Watt. 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, hold the front page!—'Big employer group opposes wage rises and opposes changes to the IR system that will enable wage rises'. Has it ever been any different? We know that over the last 10 years some of those big business groups were in cahoots with the coalition. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Please continue, Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 So it is hardly a surprise that when we finally have a government in this country that wants to get wages moving again that we see some business groups opposing it. But isn't it interesting that the opposition doesn't want to pay attention to those business groups that actually do support multi-employer bargaining? As I was saying yesterday, in the Senate inquiry we had evidence from the executive director of the Community Child Care Association, which represents over 750— Senator McGrath 217241 That's a community organisation; it's not a small business! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Oh, apparently they're not prepared to listen to community childcare centres. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator WATT 245759 They don't want them to get a voice in this because they represent employers of low-paid workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I called twice for you to be quiet and you ignored it. The minister has the right to give his answer in silence. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 So apparently if you are a business that provides childcare services you can't have your say. You also can't have a say if you are involved in manufacturing and related associations. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman, a second supplementary question? 14:46 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia The same survey has found the government's radical industrial relations legislation will put 34,000 workplaces at risk of employing fewer staff in the years ahead if the changes proceed. Employers are universally saying these changes will make it harder to run a business and employ Australians. Why is the government pursuing policy changes that will see fewer jobs for Australians and will see even more job losses than are already expected under this government? (Time expired) 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I am shocked that an employer group that is out there telling its members that the sky is going to fall in if these changes go through then goes and surveys its members and its members are scared—what a shock that is! Senator Brockman is talking about our changes as being radical. So is it radical, Senator Brockman, that what we are trying to do is make gender equity an objective of the Fair Work Act? Is it radical, Senator Brockman, that what we— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I would ask you to address your answers through the chair, and I would ask those on my left to be quiet. Senator WATT 245759 President, I ask you: is it radical to have a government that wants to ban pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts? I think it's not. Is it radical that we have a government that wants to ensure employers have a duty to prevent sexual harassment? How radical is that? What a radical proposal to do something about sexual harassment! Is it radical to have a government that wants to make the sexual harassment dispute process fairer and more effective? How naughty and how radical of this government to want to do something about that! That's why we are doing this. It's to look after women and to look after businesses. (Time expired) Climate Change 56 14:47 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. The Bureau of Meteorology have today released the State of the climate 2022 report. Unsurprisingly, it finds that the climate systems that touch on every aspect of our lives and our environment are changing before our very eyes. Our country has already warmed by 1.47 degrees. Fires, floods and cyclones are more intense. Extracting and burning coal and gas is the biggest cause of the climate crisis. Minister, do you support Australia's coal and gas export industry expanding? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will first respond to the State of the climate 2022 report and say, like Senator Waters and, I hope, most people who look at this issue rationally—and I'm afraid that doesn't necessarily include many opposite—that it is a deeply concerning report. It is a report that's released every two years. It shows an increase in extreme heat events and heavy rainfall, longer fire seasons and sea level rises. It shows, as Senator Waters said, Australia's land climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 degrees since national records began in 1910. Senator Rennick 283596 Rubbish! Senator WONG 00AOU I heard interjections from the other side, saying, 'Rubbish.' This is the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. I know you like to suggest they are part of some conspiracy, but this is what the science is telling us. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Senator WONG 00AOU But I'm actually quite pleased with the interjections because it reminds us yet again why the frame that Senator Waters has put to me is not the answer to what we have to deal with. It is not a single industry's fault. It is not a single employer's fault. It is not a single place's fault. We have to engineer a transition of the Australian economy and the global economy, and we have to do that together and we have to do it from government. For years, we have been arguing for this. And I am pleased that we finally have a parliament, in both chambers, which does want to act on climate. I also understand why it is that the Greens political party seeks to make this entirely about one issue. It is about transitioning the whole of the economy, it is about reducing the emissions that we produce and it is part of doing what Minister Bowen did at the Conference of the Parties, which is: being part of a global solution to what is a global problem. And no amount of finger-pointing, domestically, for political purposes, will yield the outcome that we want. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a first supplementary? 14:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Minister, I note that you conveniently didn't answer the aspect of the question about whether you support expanding the coal and gas export industry. However, I'll press on. Yesterday on Sky News, I'm informed, the Managing Director of Tamboran—a company that this government voted to give $7.5 million to frack the Beetaloo Basin—said they'll be able to pump gas for hundreds of years. Minister, do you want Australia to be pumping gas for hundreds of years? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I didn't see that interview, so I won't— Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry? Senator WONG 00AOU Okay. Well, that's good to know—genuinely! We do agree on something. The position the government has been very clear about is that we will reduce our emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and we will aim to get to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. I would also make this point: the market is moving. It is moving domestically and it is moving internationally—and I know those opposite want to howl at the moon over this, but it is. And what that does show is that the reliance in the global energy markets on fossil fuels, over time, to 2050, will reduce. So whatever individual companies might say, that is the reality. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Waters, Senator Rennick, I have called you to order a number of times. This is Senator Waters's question and I would ask you to give her the respect of listening to the answer. Senator Waters, a second supplementary? 14:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland That also conveniently avoided talking about the public money that this government uses to give to coal and gas industries. Minister, in August 2019 you told the ABC's Insiders, in response to a question about Pacific island concern on Australia's push for more coal and gas, that coal is an important industry for Australia. Is this still your view? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that anybody who has looked at the history of Australia and at Australia's current export profile would know the monetary value that coal has provided to all of us. It has funded a lot of the public infrastructure, including those things that you wish for—Medicare and so forth. But the point is: as the world moves to 2050, it is inevitable that we will have to ensure that we export goods and services into a global market that is a net zero market. So that means we have to transition our economy to do much more for the new economies and the clean energy economy than we have in the past. So, rather than just trying to make it about one industry and those who work in it—and vilifying those who work in it, which is what the Greens political party do—what I want to do and what we want to do is to transition our economy, so our children get the chance to have the prosperity we have had, but on the basis of clean energy and a net zero economy. (Time expired) Climate Change 58 14:54 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Minister, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have today released their State of the climate report which states that the climate has warmed by 1.5 degrees from the start of the 20th century. Can the minister explain how this will impact on communities and the emergency management sector? The PRESIDENT 112096 Once again, Senator Rennick, if you wish to make a contribution, there are many other opportunities during the week for you to do so. I ask now that you stop interjecting. Senator Wong 00AOU Stand up and say it! You're such a coward. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong, I ask you to withdraw that comment. Senator Wong 00AOU It's defaming. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I've asked you to withdraw that comment. Senator Wong 00AOU That he's a coward? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, it is not appropriate to repeat it. Senator Wong 00AOU I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Watt. 14:55 Sen 245759 Queensland ator WATT (—) (): Thank you, Senator Smith. I know that you're very concerned, along with Senator Grogan, Senator Wong and Senator Farrell, about the flooding that we're beginning to see in South Australia. We're all very concerned about what might lie ahead for your state, and we'll certainly be there with you all. Today, the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, and the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, released the State of the climate 2022 report, and it is an extremely sobering read. This report, prepared by two of Australia's leading climate research agencies, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, found that changes to whether and climate extremes are happening— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Rice! I remind you that there are opportunities during the week to make a contribution. Question time is not it. Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 It is sad that even when we have a government that is serious about doing something about climate change and is in here talking about it, the Greens want to just carry on with their usual stunts. This report does show that we are experiencing changes to weather and climate extremes, which are happening at an increased pace across Australia. Australia's climate has warmed by 1.47 degrees on average since national records began in 1910, and the impacts are being experienced across the country. While Australia has always been known as a land of drought and flooding rain, the past five years have been beyond anything we have seen in our history. This report shows an increase in extreme heat events, intense heavy rains, longer fire seasons and sea level rises. We've lurched from prolonged drought into the Black Summer bushfires and now into the unfolding flood and storm situation that's impacting across Australia's southern and eastern states. The report found that continued increasing temperatures are leading to more heat extremes and fewer cold extremes. What this means is that there is an increase in the number of dangerous fire weather days and longer fire danger seasons across southern and eastern Australia. We can also expect to see more heatwaves; heat is already our most dangerous natural hazard, killing more people than all other hazards combined. I want to acknowledge the work between the Bureau of Meteorology, emergency management agencies and the departments of health for the national implementation of the Australian Warning System for heat. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary question. 14:57 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, how is the government working to improve how we prepare communities ahead of and during these more intense heat, fire and flood events? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Smith. This government is always going to be standing shoulder to shoulder with communities when disasters hit by providing the necessary support to help them respond and recover. But by better preparing for natural disasters, we can protect lives and livelihoods, and lower damage bills from floods, fires and cyclones. Last night in this place the legislation to create the Disaster Ready Fund was passed. That was an election commitment of the Albanese government, and now we've delivered. This fund was also confirmed in last month's budget, with up to $1 billion to be made available over the next five years for important disaster mitigation projects. We also know that the most effective way to assist Australians struggling with insurance costs is to better safeguard properties from the impacts of natural disasters. This fund will provide up to $200 million per year to invest in mitigation projects like flood levees, cyclone shelters, firebreaks and evacuation centres around Australia—funds that were previously locked away by the coalition in their failed Emergency Response Fund. In the meantime, we're also helping Australians recover from the current floods, having spent— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary question. 14:58 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, please tell us: what could previous governments have done differently to prevent these now extremely concerning global warming trends? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Smith. Before addressing that, I might just mention that since January some 2.9 million people in Australia have accessed more than $3 billion in Australian government disaster recovery payments and $195 million provided through the Disaster Recovery Allowance program. But you asked what previous governments could have done differently. Firstly, the coalition could have, at any point over the past decade, acknowledged that climate change is real. Instead, we saw 10 years of government led climate wars—we're into the eleventh year now, it would appear—that held our country back, exposed Australians to risk and made us an international disgrace. With Senator Rennick and Senator Canavan still in the party room today showing that they have learnt absolutely nothing and that they still don't believe the science, we know that the coalition will never come around on the basic science. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, I will remind you that you don't start your point of order until I call. Senator Rennick 283596 That was a personal reflection under section 193(3). Could he please retract that remark? The PRESIDENT 112096 The mention of two senators; is that what you're referring to? It wasn't a personal reflection. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, what we've heard even today from Senator Rennick and Senator Canavan, among their colleagues, shows that nothing has changed. There are so many things the former government could have done. It could have spent a single cent from its Emergency Response Fund on just one disaster mitigation project. Instead it just earned interest. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 59 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Question No. 543 59 15:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Pursuant to standing order 74(5) I ask for an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister Watt, as to why an answer to question on notice No. 543 has not been provided to the chamber. 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I didn't hear the question number Senator McKenzie referred to, but I think it was 543? I understand that answer has been tabled, but for the avoidance of doubt here's another copy I'm happy to table now. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 59 15:02 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today by opposition senators. We had quite an interesting question time today, with lots of talk of psychics, spiritual healers, shamans and the like, and I couldn't help but wonder, with all of this talk of seeing into the future, if only the government had had a crystal ball back in May, because then they might've actually foreseen some semblance of an economic plan they could bring to the Australian people to try and solve some of these very difficult problems we currently see before us. Throughout the election campaign we heard on multiple occasions the now Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and his Labor colleagues tell Australians they'd cut the cost of living. They told everyone that their household costs would come down and their wages would go up. They promised Australians would see a $275 reduction in their power bills—not a subsidy, a concession or a one-off payment; they said that's what your power bills would go down by. Yet in the recent budget Labor itself is forecasting power price rises of more than 30 per cent. Labor's IR bill will only add to those cost-of-living pressures. Yesterday media outlets reported: … food manufacturers and distributors … warned the legislation would push up grocery prices and worsen the cost of living crisis. It is clear that Labor's IR changes will adversely affect hundreds and thousands of Australian businesses, and we know that small businesses are going to be hit the hardest. Instead of thinking about the hardworking Australians who own and operate small businesses around this country and instead of focusing on delivering cost-of-living relief to Australians before Christmas, which we know is on its way, the government's only focus is giving the unions an early Christmas present. It's quite amazing how quickly Labor's tone changed after they won the election and took office. In the election campaign, it was all about reducing the cost of living, and, as soon as they were elected, all we've heard from the Treasurer is commentary on how bad the global economy is, commentary on how none of it's their fault and a pursuit of the niche issues to appease their union mates. The Labor Party were more than happy to attack the former government for economic conditions right through three years of the worldwide COVID pandemic, but now, after being elected, all we hear is an attempt to set a narrative that nothing is their fault: 'It's the war in Ukraine.' 'It's inflation in the United States and the United Kingdom.' 'It's international supply chains.' Governing is about dealing with these events. Sometimes it is hard, but you have to deal with them. That is your responsibility. Yet, after waxing lyrical about how they were going to reduce the cost of living, Australians have been left fuming at the lack of action from this government, which is now pursuing legislation in the form of an IR bill that will only deliver higher cost-of-living pressures for Australian families and for Australian businesses. As we heard today, the Albanese government's own regulatory impact statement, if it's to be believed, shows that Labor's legislation will cost small businesses more than $14,600 in bargaining costs including consultancy fees, however calculated. For medium businesses, that cost is going to be more than $75,000, but we know the actual cost could in fact be much higher than that. Let's not forget that according to the government a medium business is defined as having any more than 15 employees. The question remains: how is the government going to respond to the challenges of the day and deliver on the hard and fast promises they made to cut the cost of living for Australians? Like I said, there was no shortage of promises made by Labor to do so. Australians didn't hear the Labor Party saying, 'We'll cut the cost of living as long as the war in Ukraine ends, as long as the US economy is strong and everything else is well around the world.' They said that they would cut the cost of living, lower your power bills by hundreds of dollars—not raise them by 40 per cent and then, hopefully, take a few dollars off down the track. Australians definitely didn't hear the Prime Minister or Labor proposed these radical industrial relations laws, because they never took this policy to the last election. It amounts to another broken promise from Labor. Labor's changes will mean a weaker economy. Labor's changes will mean higher cost-of-living pressures for Australian families. Labor's changes will put the interests of union bosses ahead of hard-working Australians and our economy. Labor is more than happy to leave our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the mercy of the militant CFMMEU. By abolishing the ABCC, Labor have opened the door for more strikes, fewer jobs and unprecedented access to small business. It will have a devastating impact on our economy, resulting in higher business costs. Addressing the cost-of-living pressures doesn't even register anymore. 15:07 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It is fascinating to watch the coalition try and work out their political tactics today in question time, particularly on the secure jobs, better pay bill. They want to use question time and many mechanisms within this chamber to push forward their scare campaign about the industrial relations changes that this government is rightly trying to implement. But as soon as Minister Watt began answering the questions—and, quite rightly, making the comparison between Labor's record and approach to industrial relations and that of the previous government—you could barely keep up with the coalition senators interjecting, popping up and trying to prevent the minister from actually answering the question. We all know why those opposite don't want us to make this comparison, because it does start to remind the Australian public of their track record, of what they are ashamed about on their industrial relations reforms in this country, and so they should be. For the past 10 years under the previous government, Australia's enterprise bargaining system has been in decline. Around half as many new agreements were made last year as were made in the 2013-14 financial year. The coalition policy of deliberately suppressing wages—their words, not ours—has had a devastating effect on working people. Have they abandoned this policy? Clearly not, because they are not doing everything they can to ensure that the workers get the pay rises that they have been screaming out for for the last decade. That is why the Labor Party, since it has come to government and in the lead up to the last election, has made crystal clear its efforts to get wages moving again. The coalition cannot even decide what scare campaign they want to run. Some members of the opposition argue that there is no proof that the bill will get wages moving again. But the Leader of the Opposition has been on the record in the other place as saying that he is scared that the bill will start to prompt wages growth above and beyond inflation. It is also important to note that those opposite could also learn a thing or two from the union movement. Because quite frankly, with the experience that a number of Labor members on this side have had, the fact is that the collapse of bargaining over the last 10 years has led directly to the loss of wage growth for the Australian workers. Every incremental increase in bargaining coverage will result in meaningful wage increases according to many researchers but particularly a new study from the Centre for Future Work. The study shows that every percentage point of bargaining coverage lost since 2013 has resulted in a drop in wage growth of around 0.15 per cent. The OECD average for bargaining coverage in countries with enterprise and some limited multi-employer bargaining is around 33 percent. So if this bill that is before the parliament, and once it does come into the Senate for debate, manages to increase bargaining to this level, the level that is seen right across many OECD countries, the report predicts that a corresponding 1.6 per cent increase in wages growth will occur every single year. This increase means $1,473 per pay rise for the average worker in the first year. I think that is a really good start. That is the whole intent of the Albanese government about trying to not only ensure that there are more secure jobs in this country, but to have jobs that have meaningful wage rises that we have not seen over the last 10 years. But what we saw when we first came was that the previous government refused to actually put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission that supported meaningful wage rises for workers. So one of our very first acts as a government was to write to the Fair Work Commission advocating for wage rises for the very, very many millions of Australians who are on our award system, the low-paid of this country—the very people who were packing our shelves, working around the clock to ensure that we had toilet paper and tissues at the last minute when we ran out of supply, the people that were on the front line defending our fellow Australians during the COVID pandemic. Remember those people? Those people that we always come in and talk about and say what a great job they're doing, but those opposite refused to ensure that their wages keep growing. 15:12 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia The concern that we have with the bill that the government is putting forward and the way they have responded to the questions is that there seems to be a lack of understanding that it is not so much government and government programs, but it is small business who are the predominant employers of people in Australia. That means that for a business to be able to employ people and to pay good wages, the business has to be profitable, and the business owner, who is often stumping up their own capital, often putting their own house on the line to get the capital to invest in their business, needs to have the confidence that they will have some control and some rapport with their workforce and will be able to set conditions that are good for both the employees and the employer. One of the problems with what's being proposed here is that this is a massive change to our industrial relations system that strips the small business owner and their direct employees—who they generally have a good relationship with, because they tend to work as a team—it strips that relationship away and puts it in the hands of unions, who are representative bodies who have no relationship often with the actual business and their workforce. One of the concerns with this is that this is a change that takes us back three decades. It undoes some of the very productive reforms that previous Labor governments have put in place. As we look at the rush here, it's worth remembering that when governments get elected on the basis of a policy position that's been argued and considered and has been put to the Australian public, there is some grounds for them to rush things through if they believe it's really important and the Australian people have given them a mandate. But, in this case, it was not an election commitment; it wasn't discussed before the election. There is no commitment, and even independent media outlets are highlighting the fact that it's reasonable to ask why the rush. In the editorial in the Australian today, it asks: why the rush? And it talks about the evidence of the haste in that the department, in seeking to rush this through and provide an evidence base, has reached out to sources that even the minister has admitted were not wise. In fact, they're quite laughable. The source for how much business could be expected to pay to enter into a multi-employer agreement quoted by the department describes themselves as a 'cross between a business strategist, modern-day spiritual healer and self-development expert'. It's hardly the kind of robust basis on which policy should be developed in Australia. The editorial in the Australian goes on to highlight the high costs to business, some $14½ thousand to small businesses and up to $75,000 for medium-size businesses. And it asks the question: why the rush? I think that's a valid question, particularly when you look at the feedback that business is giving. In my home state of South Australia, Business SA, which is a representative body, is highlighting the fact that there are a number of red flags for business. Currently, you can have enterprise bargaining where multi-employer bargaining can be done where employees choose to bargain together, but, in the case of this bill, it can force people to bargain, so businesses are at risk of being roped into agreements which are not negotiated at all. In fact, the employees may not want it, but they can be roped in, because unions could reach an agreement with a few employers elsewhere and then extend the agreement to hundreds of other employees. The issue for business is that the Labor government don't appear to actually understand the impact of costs. We see that even in their Powering Australia plan. Whilst Minister Bowen is saying that sensible economists would support the wind and solar transition that the government is, again, rushing, he ignores the evidence from independent experts, including engineers and economists such as the OECD, which have highlighted, in a report released in April this year, that power prices will only continue to rise, and, in fact, rise exponentially, as we constrain carbon emissions if we insist on relying purely on wind and solar. They have a place, but the OECD has highlighted that wind and solar will not get us to net zero and that we do need to consider other options. Unlike the assertions by Mr Bowen, the OECD and the IEA actually say the cheapest form of electricity is nuclear power. 15:18 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I thank the opposition for their trifecta of questions, served up on our Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill and its regulatory impact statement. And I thank them, of course, for their rigorous examination of the RIS for our bill. I also thank them for making it patently clear, through their behaviour in the chamber today, which can really only be described as frantic and frenzied, that their opposition to our bill has nothing to do with the details of the regulatory impact statement. Their opposition to the bill has nothing to do with what we're trying to achieve as a government for workers and businesses in this country. Their opposition to this bill has everything to do with the coalition's absolute love for low wages in this country. We all know that the Liberals just love low wages. We all remember that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the previous government's agenda, and that is exactly what we are about to change. When I think about why the secure jobs, better pay bill is so important, some of the people that I'm thinking about are the early childhood educators who have come to this place, year after year, telling us all their story about how hard it is for them to live on the wages that they earn. They come here and tell us that $24 an hour for caring for and educating and nurturing the next generation is an insulting amount of money. They've been telling us that the money is so low, in this profession, that while they're doing work they absolutely love—educating children—many of them can't even afford to have their own. These workers, 90 per cent of whom are women, need multi-employer bargaining to get their wages moving. When I think about our bill, I'm also thinking about the cleaners, who do absolutely essential work. They go in at night, after everyone else has gone, and clean toilets for a living, and are proud to do that for a job. But what they can't stand is earning wages that are so low they can't support themselves and their families—wages like 20 bucks an hour. This is another group of workers that need multi-employer bargaining to get their wages moving. The enterprise bargaining system has completely failed all of these workers and failed their families too. What educators and cleaners have in common is not just that they're low paid, it's that they're employed in small workplaces, where the workers and employers don't have the resources to engage in bargaining effectively. If they could use enterprise bargaining, it would literally take decades, enterprise by enterprise, to get wages moving. We can't wait that long. These workers can't wait that long. Australia can't wait that long to get wages moving in this country. The system as it exists today just doesn't work. Workers know it. Employers know it. Everyone who came to our jobs summit knows that the system we have in place just doesn't work. It's why only 14 per cent of Australians today are covered by enterprise agreements. It's why reform is needed. It's why wages were flatlining for 10 years under the previous government. It's why we need multi-employer bargaining and why we're proud to present it to this parliament. We need to get wages moving in this country after a decade of those opposite. The problem is not that wages are going too far or too high, right now, in Australia. The problem is that they've not been moving at all. These laws are about redressing the imbalance that has emerged over the past 10 years. The sky won't fall in. Demand for workers won't dry up. It will not be the 1970s again. What will happen is wages will start moving. 15:23 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory We hear a lot from this government with their concern for everyday Australians, yet they can't seem to come up with a plan to reduce the cost of living for everyday Australians. Instead, we have a rushed piece of legislation. What does rushed legislation look like? It looks like inaccurate bargaining costs. It looks like a government that cannot demonstrate it is able to produce accurate costings, for small and medium business, using its own formulas. Is it $75,148—already an expensive cost for medium business—or, more accurately, more than $80,000 for medium business? What else does a rushed legislation look like? It looks like google is a research tool, for relying on shamans to strategists, psychics to sales reps, healers to homemakers, Buddhists to businessmen, and meditators to mediators, to develop its policy on the run, and a minister that is clearly prepared to throw his department under the bus when he's called out for his unreliable research tactics. We're hearing a lot of accusations of scare campaigns and scare tactics, and terminology such as 'frantic' and 'frenzied'. There are businesspeople out there who are very concerned about what the impacts and the cost of this legislation will be for them. They say this legislation is about supporting workers. Don't we have to support the businesspeople that employ workers to ensure the businesspeople can appropriately support their employees? Otherwise, these individuals may well be without a job in the end. We're hearing from small to medium businessowners that this legislation may impact them to the point where they have to lay off some of their workers or close the doors entirely on their businesses. So yes, there is for concern, and this government have to recognise that this is the case. This is not an exercise about increasing wages; this is an exercise about handing over workplaces to the unions. The mining industry—which every single one of us rely on everything to do with our everyday lives, not to mention to support the rush towards renewables by this government—is certainly an industry that impacts the people of the Northern Territory, where I come from, in many ways. It needs to be understood that the industry already delivers average annual pay rises of more than the CPI, with some companies increasing salaries of employees by 7.8 per cent above state inflation rates. These proposed workplace changes are a radical shakeup of Australia's industrial relations system. If we want to look further into what it means for the mining sector, there is concern that this is going to lead to widespread strikes within the mining industry. It has the potential to relate to the similar strikes we saw in the 1970s. It threatens the mining industry, which earns over $413 billion in exports, employs over 277,000 Australians in high-paid jobs and contributes $43.2 billion in taxes—and this was in 2021. This is an industry that supports Australians across the board. In the last 20 years, employment in mining has tripled and wages have doubled, benefiting hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially in regional areas. The mining companies are saying these changes will slow down Australia's energy transformation, which we need for lithium, batteries, more copper for solar panels and more cobalt for electric vehicles. They don't need more uncertainty and risk that will simply chase away investment to our shores. Question agreed to. Racism 63 15:28 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to racially motivated violence against First Nations kids. I note that Minister Watt's response to racially motivated violence against First Nations kids was to talk about youth justice, as if our kids are the problem. We're talking about adults perpetrating violence against our children in this country. The world knows about Cassius, and everyone was touched by that disgusting, violent, racial attack. Even the PM knows about Cassius. But what about all the other children? In August, a 49-year-old woman mowed down two Aboriginal boys with her four-wheel drive, leaving one, Ronaldo Penny, in a coma for six days with a fractured skull, swelling and bleeding in the brain, and a broken femur. He will carry these injuries for the rest of his life. In October, a 21-year-old man assaulted 15-year-old Cassius Turvey and a 13-year-old friend who was on crutches. Cassius was beaten to death. The 13-year-old was assaulted and racially vilified before his attacker stole his crutches. One week later—and you didn't hear about this in the media—Lehon Sutton Pickett and his 14-year-old brother-in-law were hunted down in a four-wheel-drive and then assaulted with metal poles. This is in the great country called Oz, isn't it? Horrifically, the details of all this violence are similar: home-made weapons, racial slurs and claims of mistaken identity. These predators know exactly who we are: Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land. For First Nations people, the violence doesn't stop with the assault. We then have to face a racist police network. They either don't care or actively contribute to the violence. When Lehon was attacked, police attended the scene—get this!—and no-one was arrested. Lehon told officers that he wanted to press charges and the police said that they were too busy. In November, 13-year-old Jayden Abraham was mauled by a police dog. A 13-year-old Aboriginal child was mauled by a police dog! He suffered severe injuries to his face, neck and arm. The Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia has called out the disproportionate use of police dogs on First Nations people. In the last year, police dogs were used against First Nations people in 61 per cent of cases. We know why this is happening: people brag about it online! I quote: 'The dogs would have a fat time munching their bones' and 'Baseball bats or large boltcutters have more than one use; find them and start cutting hands off.' This is barbaric and it's unacceptable. And what's the Prime Minister saying about that? Call it what it is: racially motivated terrorism. People are getting radicalised online, leading to violence on our streets, and the police are part of the problem. Black lives matter; our babies matter. What's the Albanese government going to do about it? What's the McGowan government going to do about it? All of these attacks happened in Western Australia. Labor has the power to protect our babies at the state and federal level, so do something. It's all talk and no action, Labor! Oh, wait, it's on the agenda for the Attorney-General. But it has been on the agenda for 200 years! Act on what we're telling you: ban unmuzzled police dogs, release all bodycam footage when families ask you to and stop hiding the truth! Question agreed to. NOTICES 64 NOTICES Presentation 64 COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 66 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. CONDOLENCES 66 CONDOLENCES Ellicott, Hon. Robert James (Bob), AC, KC 66 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 31 October 2022, of the Hon. Robert James (Bob) Ellicott AC, KC, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Wentworth, New South Wales, from 1974 to 1981. 15:34 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 31 October 2022, of the Hon. Robert James (Bob) Ellicott AC, KC, former Attorney-General and Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment and the former member for Wentworth, places on record its gratitude for his service to the parliament and to the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of former barrister, minister and judge the Hon. Robert—otherwise known as Bob—James Ellicott AC, KC at the ripe old age of 95. As I begin, I wish to convey the Senate's condolences to Mr Ellicott's family and his friends. Born in Moree, New South Wales, on what was Good Friday 15 April 1927, Bob Ellicott had a life that was long and impactful. As a child, he set his ambition to become a barrister, which he set about making a reality by 1950, when he was admitted to the New South Wales bar. In 1964, he was appointed a Queen's Council. Then, in 1969, he became the Solicitor-General of Australia, a role he held until 1973. During that time, Bob Ellicott served as one of Australia's first delegates to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, a role which provides a small degree of overlap with the work I currently undertake in the trade portfolio. Bob entered parliament as the member for Wentworth at the 1974 election. Following the 1975 election, Mr Ellicott was appointed Attorney-General in the Fraser government. As Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott made a big mark on Australian legal structures. In this role, he established the Family Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had both been initiated by the Whitlam government. He was also responsible for legislation which set up the Human Rights Commission. However, his term as Attorney-General came to an end when he resigned his ministry after a disagreement with the then Prime Minister in 1977. While I did not personally know Mr Ellicott, I think we can get a sense of the person he was from his willingness to give up his role due to a difference of opinion with the then Prime Minister, in line with Westminster tradition. However, in recognition of his ability and commitment to reform, not long after that he was reappointed to the ministry as Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Capital Territory. It was in these roles that he continued to build a legacy which continues to serve us to this day. One area where Bob made a contribution was in his role—one particularly close to my heart—where he set about establishing the Australian Institute of Sport, following a notably poor performance by Australia at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. His passion for sport continued throughout the rest of his life, and I think it's fair to say that many of our current sporting heroes owe their success to Bob's forward-thinking approach to sport. Bob left parliament in 1981 after making many significant contributions throughout his parliamentary career. Bob's drive to contribute to Australian society continued. Following his parliamentary career, Bob served on the Federal Court bench and as an arbitrator on the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Over the decades, his efforts saw him awarded with many accolades—too many to list here. This perhaps culminated in him being recognised in the 2017 Australia Day Awards, being awarded the AC in the general division of the Order of Australia. A loving husband of Colleen, who passed in 2020, a loving father of Suzanne, Penelope, Michael and John and an adored grandfather and great-grandfather, our thoughts go out to his loved ones. In the words of John, Bob was a man of great compassion, love and commitment. We thank Bob Ellicott for the contribution he made to our country through his great life of service. May he rest in peace. 15:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to join with the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate in support of this motion recognising the life and contribution of the honourable Robert James—or 'Bob'—Ellicott AC KC. Bob Ellicott was a scholar, statutory officeholder, esteemed and respected barrister, jurist and parliamentarian. While serving in parliament as the member for Wentworth from 1974 until his resignation in 1981, Bob Ellicott served as a senior minister and significant figure both during and in the years immediately following Australia's greatest political and constitutional crisis. He had, as Senator Farrell indicated, gravitated towards law and being a barrister from a very young age. The age of eight, in fact, is when he said that he had set his sights on becoming a barrister! Bob's success as a barrister ultimately saw him serve as the Commonwealth Solicitor-General from 1969 until 1973, when he was caught by the lure of politics. Under Prime Minister Fraser, Bob Ellicott became Australia's first law officer as Attorney-General, taking on the role as a man with a reputation for integrity and honesty, hallmarks which would also ultimately see him stand down from that position. In becoming Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott became—and, indeed, remains, as I understand it—the only person to have served as both Australia's Solicitor-General and Australia's Attorney-General. Bob believed his discretion and independence as Attorney-General were paramount. When he felt they had come into conflict with Prime Minister Fraser and members of the cabinet in relation to the Sankey v Whitlam and others proceedings, which as many others would be aware is a case intrinsically linked to the events preceding the dismissal and those events known as the Khemlani loans affair, Bob Ellicott chose to resign as Attorney-General. This was a bitter end to what at the time was the peak of a legal career of great eminence and achievement. But it was also the act of a man who was true to his oath and commitments, who put his principle of respect for and belief in the law first. And, for that, he was respected, including by the Prime Minister with whom he had disagreed. With a softly spoken and mild-mannered demeanour, Bob was renowned for his belief in the law and the legal system. In 1975, leading up to the dismissal, he had spoken of and written of the role of the Governor-General with a legal opinion just weeks out from that eventful day of 11 November 1975 which the then respected National Times called the most thorough, tightly argued and prophetic legal opinion. Despite his departure from the coveted position of Attorney-General, Malcolm Fraser rightly lauded Bob's achievements during his time in that office, pointing to his role in the restructuring of the Federal Court and the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and his work to establish the Human Rights Commission, all within just two years in the office of Attorney-General. Despite the loss of the position of Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott was back in the Fraser ministry within two months, reflective of the respect that Malcolm Fraser had for him, and continued to serve as a minister right through until his departure from politics in 1981. One of those roles was as Minister for the Capital Territory. It was Bob Ellicott who led the charge towards the first referendum on self-government in the ACT. The result of that 1978 vote was for the status quo, but there is no doubt that Bob Ellicott can be considered as one of the founders of the self-government movement for our national capital. It would take another decade for the ACT to take on self-government and, even then, with many doubters, but that foundation was laid in part by Bob Ellicott. As many will have seen from the many tributes paid to Bob since his death on 31 October this year, at the age of 95, it was Bob's role—as Senator Farrell referenced—in establishing the Australian Institute of Sport that is perhaps his greatest legacy. Bob himself said it was his proudest achievement and one of the great privileges of his life. He described how, gradually, the AIS took off in full flight—like a 747 on its first flight, he said. It is a legacy that set Australia on a path towards being competitive in the world of high-performance sporting endeavour in the years and decades following the establishment of the AIS. Generations have since benefited and will continue to do so. It had been driven by the bitter disappointment of Bob and many others at Australia's performance at those 1976 Montreal Olympics, in which, though it's hard to believe in this day and age, Australia won no gold medals—just one silver and four bronze medals. This drove him towards the establishment of the AIS. Famed athlete Robert de Castella said after Bob's death that he was the one who turned the whole high-performance approach around. In 1981, Bob decided to return to law, leaving the parliament to be appointed to the Federal Court bench. He had hoped to be appointed Chief Justice of the High Court, and, indeed, discussions had occurred about that potential appointment. But his publicly stated views and opinions in relation to the dismissal saw him deemed too controversial a figure for the role. His time on the Federal Court was to be short, like his time as Attorney-General—just a couple of years. But it was equally impactful. Jack Waterford, writing in the Canberra Times following Bob's decision to leave the Federal Court, described him as having proven himself to be an outstanding judge who would be a great loss to the Federal Court. He said Bob had particularly demonstrated his ability and his radicalism in his work in administrative law. Jack Waterford went on to highlight specifically some of that work in administrative law and the fact that Bob Ellicott had brought an interpretation of administrative law, particular in terms of the rights of members of the public and public servants themselves, to natural justice in their dealings with the bureaucracy and in terms of the right of public servants to the review of bureaucratic decisions made affecting them. He said they were landmark decisions in relation to the new administrative order. Ultimately, Bob Ellicott's love of the work he had undertaken as a barrister saw him decide to leave the bench. He had a desire to be able to speak out on the issues that mattered to him more, and he returned to the bar. He remained active as a barrister and also in a range of other ways, including, as has been referenced, as a judge on the Court of Arbitration for Sport of the International Olympic Committee from 1995 all the way until 2015, when he was nearing his 90th year. His induction into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2016 was a fitting tribute to a person who gave so much to the development of Australian sport. On behalf of the coalition, I add our condolences to those expressed in the House earlier this month to Bob's family, friends and many colleagues across politics, law and sport but, most especially, to his children, Suzanne, Penelope, Michael and John, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. Now reunited with his beloved wife, Colleen, who died just two years ago, we thank him for his service and them for sharing him. May he rest in peace. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. NOTICES 68 NOTICES Withdrawal 68 15:49 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I should have probably done this at placing of business. On behalf of Senator White, the chair of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of her intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for four sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2021 (No. 2) and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for seven sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio Measures No. 1) Regulations 2022. Withdrawal 68 15:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I withdraw my notice of motion No. 79. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 68 Reference 68 15:50 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senators Fawcett and Ciccone, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 March 2023: The role of adaptive sport programs for Australian Defence Force veterans in addressing issues identified by the ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, with particular reference to: (a) current evidence on the benefits adaptive sport can provide to those with physical and/or mental health impairments, particularly those who have also served or trained in national defence; (b) the role of sport in supporting individuals' transition from the Australian Defence Force into civilian life, especially how sport may assist veterans who meet criteria identifying them as being most at risk of suicide; (c) the Australian Defence Force's use of adaptive sport; (d) whether there are any gaps in services and demand for adaptive sport by the veteran community, and, if so, how these gaps can be addressed; (e) the equitability of current funding for adaptive sport, and how the accessibility of adaptive sport can be improved for veterans who are not a part of Invictus programs; (f) the potential for a centralised authority to play a role in coordination or resourcing to provide access and where appropriate, enable consistency, in the use of adaptive sport to support rehabilitation, transition or reintegration for serving members and veterans around the nation and across support services and organisations; (g) whether eligibility for the Australian Sports Medal, or similar recognition, should be extended to teams that participated in the Invictus Games prior to 2018 and other veterans' teams representing Australia in international events; and (h) any other related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:51 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senators Cash, McKenzie and Davey, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 33 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 8 September 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister to table briefing notes, file notes and any written communication in relation to the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery, has not been complied with, and (ii) the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future disaster recovery funding arrangements; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, noting that: (i) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and (ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the New South Wales Government; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022. 15:51 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator AYRES 16913 The opposition has made its approach to orders for the production of documents pretty clear—wide-ranging fishing expeditions at the rate of more than two a sitting day so far. Its approach in government, by contrast, was also very clear. In the last parliament alone those opposite issued claims of public interest immunity in response to 40 per cent of Senate orders for the production of documents. The former government, led by the lamentable Scott Morrison, was a conspiracy to pervert the processes and to keep things secret to protect ministers. The former government claimed public interest immunity to withhold the final report in relation to Senator McKenzie's awarding of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Program. They claimed public interest immunity to protect Senator McKenzie from producing documents relating to the dairy industry. They did it every day of the week that we were here. We're not going to stand a word of criticism from an opposition that should be ashamed of itself. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, two issues: you need to refer to members in the other place by their correct title and I ask you to withdraw the comment you made about the former Prime Minister, without repeating the comment. Senator AYRES 16913 I withdraw whatever it was I said. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you very much. Question agreed to. Superannuation 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:54 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 52 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 25 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer to table any briefing notes, file notes and emails received by the Assistant Treasurer from superannuation industry representatives in relation to changes to the superannuation industry payment disclosure requirements, has not been complied with, and (ii) the Assistant Treasurer, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis of privacy, citing concerns individuals and organisations have a reasonable expectation that representations made to the minister are not put on the public record without proper consent and consultation; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Assistant Treasurer on the grounds of privacy, noting that: (i) claims that information has been collected on the condition that it would be treated as confidential, and therefore cannot be disclosed, is not in itself a ground for a public interest immunity claim, (ii) it must be established that some harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought by the order, and (iii) any specific harm could be overcome by disclosing information in general terms without the identity of those to whom it relates; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022. 15:54 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator AYRES 16913 The opposition used public interest immunity claims to protect almost everybody in the former government. I talked about Senator McKenzie before, but what about Senator Cash? They used public interest immunity claims to protect her and to avoid producing documents related to the rorting of infrastructure grants and the inflated purchase of the Leppington Triangle land. There isn't a single point where the previous government wasn't prepared to use public interest immunity claims. When properly constructed, public interest immunity claims can be properly used, but the previous government used them to debauch the public sector, to debauch the proper processes of government. What you'll find with the new government is a very strong contrast. It suited the previous government to use these provisions to protect themselves. Again, it's pretty hot to have any criticism in here of this government's approach to those questions. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business No. 85 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. 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. McCarthy, M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Department of the Treasury 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 16:02 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday 29 November 2022, the following documents in relation to the consultation on 'Crypto asset secondary service providers: Licensing and custody requirements', commenced by the Treasury on 21 March 2022: (a) all briefings provided to the Assistant Treasurer by the Treasury relating to the Treasury consultation, received between 21 May and 29 November 2022; (b) all documents detailing any policy options that have been recommended to the Assistant Treasurer by the Treasury relating to the Treasury consultation, received between 21 May and 29 November 2022; (c) any draft legislation that has been developed by the Treasury to implement the policy recommendations specified in paragraph (b), between 21 May and 29 November 2022; (d) all documents and/or correspondence between the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasury detailing a determination on why submissions to the Treasury consultation have not been uploaded to the Treasury website received between 21 May and 29 November 2022; (e) all submissions provided to the Treasury consultation; and (f) all documents, briefings and/or correspondence detailing meetings between the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasury regarding this Treasury consultation, between 21 May and 29 November 2022. 16:02 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Senator Bragg's motion, as usual, is a waste of time. He has already asked the Assistant Treasurer for the exact same documents through a freedom of information process and has submitted the request through a parliamentary question on notice. Senator Bragg is good at wasting the Senate's time, and, again, this is another stunt. It is not a duplication process but a triplication. The government is more than happy to be transparent on this issue through the FOI and the question on notice process. The motion is a waste of time and should be opposed. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 86 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Budget 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 16:10 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 November 2022: (a) a copy of the Budget Process Operational Rules used in the formation of the 2022-23 October Budget (BPORs); (b) any briefings, minutes or advice provided to the Minister for Finance by the Department of Finance relating to the BPORs and amendments to the BPORs since 22 May 2022; and (c) any letter, email, communique or other document that accompanied the BPORs when they were issued as advice to agencies. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 87, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:11]
(The President—Senator Sue Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Infrastructure 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 16:13 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 50 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 25 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table documents in relation to the Hahndorf Township Improvements and Access Upgrade Project, has not been complied with, and (ii) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in her response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, noting that: (i) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and (ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the South Australian Government; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022. Notice of motion altered 22 November 2022 pursuant to standing order 77. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 89, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:17 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 55 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 26 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table correspondence, requests for, or approval of, Australian Government funding for projects or programs in the 2022-23 Federal Budget, has not been complied with, (ii) the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements, and (iii) the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is yet to respond to the order; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government noting that: (i) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and (ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from a state or territory government; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 90, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 75 MATTERS OF URGENCY Human Rights: Iran 75 16:21 The PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from Senator Chandler: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to take concrete action, including applying sanctions comparable to those applied by likeminded nations, in response to the human rights abuses and deadly violence perpetrated by the Iranian government against its citizens; and other actions of the Iranian Government including its support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 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 debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:22 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to take concrete action, including applying sanctions comparable to those applied by likeminded nations, in response to the human rights abuses and deadly violence perpetrated by the Iranian government against its citizens; and other actions of the Iranian Government including its support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is certainly a matter of urgency. People in Iran are dying every day at the hands of the government of Iran. Women are being killed. Children are being killed. Innocent civilians are dying. While Iranians authorities have done their best to hide from the world what is happening by cutting off internet and access to social media, the world knows who is responsible for this. I'm sure every senator in this chamber has received countless emails and social media messages and phone calls from the Iranian community, making it clear that they want action and not just words from our government. It has been more than two months since Mahsa Jina Amini was killed. I've been calling for urgent action by the government since the week of her death back in September. It is completely mystifying to the Iranian Australian community as to why our government hasn't chosen to act sooner and faster. A fortnight ago, when the opposition asked the Prime Minister why Australia was yet to apply the same targeted sanctions that our allies have, the Prime Minister quite disgracefully chose to talk about considering the implications for businesses before acting. It is a situation where women are being beaten in the streets by their government for not covering their hair. Children are being shot and killed by the military. It is not a time to be sitting around, mulling over business dealings with Iran. It is time to act. Other countries have acted and have applied multiple rounds of sanctions to Iran. This government likes to talk about acting in concert with our partners and the international community, but that is precisely the opposite of what it's done when it comes to sanctioning the individuals responsible for killing women and children in Iran. Six days ago Canada announced its sixth round of sanctions in response to the recent violence and human rights abuses. In that same time our government has announced zero sanctions. The US has announced multiple rounds of sanctions directly in response to the current violence. So has the UK. Australia? None. These sanction notices provide long lists of individuals within the Iranian regime who our allies have identified and taken action against, along with detailed explanations of why they have been sanctioned. Yet when I asked the foreign minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs whether we agree with our allies that those individuals deserve to be sanctioned, all we receive in response is 'no comment, we can't discuss that'. By the way, if you go and look at the Hansard for those foreign affairs estimates held 13 days ago, we still haven't had a transcript published. What is going on? Not only can the community not get answers from the government; they can't even access a record of official proceedings of the parliament from two weeks ago. I am pleased that yesterday the minister confirmed that government agencies tasked with countering foreign interference have been tasked to look at the threats and intimidation made towards Australian critics of the Iranian regime. This is a serious matter, one that I raised in estimates myself and have subsequently raised with our eSafety Commissioner in written correspondence. Security and intelligence services around the world are making clear that this is a very real and very dangerous matter. MI5 has confirmed that Iran's intelligence services have made at least 10 attempts to kidnap or even kill British nationals or people based in the United Kingdom regarded by Teheran as a threat. Meanwhile, as if what they're doing to their own civilians is not bad enough, we know that Iran is arming Russia with drones to kill Ukrainian civilians. Once again, our allies have sanctioned Iranian authorities over this, but Australia, according to the minister's answers to my questions earlier this week, has not. It is not good enough for Australia to be lagging behind our allies in responding to this human rights crisis with targeted sanctions. Iran is growing bolder every day in their violence and their threats to international peace and security. It is time for Australia to play our part in holding them to account. 16:27 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales [inaudible] It is a shame it didn't come a bit earlier, because in government they oversaw a decade of cuts to Australian diplomacy and multilateral institutions; a decade of inattention and cynicism. Those opposite were members of the UN committee that appointed Iran—get this—appointed Iran to the Commission for the Status of Women! They could have acted when they were in government. They did nothing. They said nothing. Unfortunately, they seem to remain committed to the Scott Morrison approach of putting political point-scoring ahead of the national interest in foreign policy. As Senator Chandler well knows, the Albanese government is committed to action on Iran. We have acted and we will continue to act. The Australian government condemns the deadly and disproportionate use of force against protesters in Iran following the tragic death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman, whose Kurdish name was Jina. We have raised our concerns regarding the brutal crackdown on protesters directly with the Iranian Embassy in Canberra. The government has been alarmed by reports that hundreds of people have been killed and many more injured, including dozens of children, as a result of the heavy-handed measures Iranian authorities have implemented to crackdown on ongoing protests. Australia supports the right of the Iranian people to protest peacefully and calls on the Iranian authorities to exercise restraint in response to ongoing demonstrations. As the foreign minister, Senator Wong, has told the Senate, we'll continue to work with our international partners and continue building pressure on the regime to cease its brutal campaign against its own citizens. Senator Chandler seems to want to give people who might be the subject of sanctions as much warning as possible, which of course weakens their effect. It's an open-mic night in the Liberal Party foreign policy committee, and they're all competing for who can score the pettiest political point. The government won't play political games. We'll continue to step up pressure on the Iranian regime. Australia stands with the Iranian women and girls in their struggle for equality and empowerment and will continue to call on Iran to cease its oppression of women. We're committed to promoting gender equality, and women's empowerment, and ending violence against women and girls worldwide. The Liberals and Nationals had their chance in government, and they did nothing. 16:31 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Every day, we wake up to more devastating news from Iran. Today, there is news of Iran's revolutionary guards attacking targets in neighbouring northern Iraq for a second day in a row. The air strikes targeted bases of Kurdish separatist groups in northern Iraq, according to most recent reports. Also, today, Iran's football team at the World Cup have been told that they could face reprisals if they fail to sing the national anthem in their remaining World Cup group games, after a politician in the country said that they will never allow anyone to insult their national anthem. Despite these chilling warnings, the players stayed silent at their first game, in solidarity with Iranian people protesting following Mahsa Amini's death. A major disruption to internet services has also been reported today in Iran. There have been reports of indiscriminate killings of more protesters, including children. This is all in simply one day's worth of news. The Australian government must do more. These behaviours by the Iranian regime have continued and continued. Words of condemnation are not enough. Actions must be taken. The Australian Greens remain deeply concerned about the ongoing situation in Iran and are in solidarity with protesters there. We will always protect the right to protest. We will always fight for people's rights to choose their dress, their partner, their religion and their career and what they want to do with their bodies. The Iranian authorities' oppression of the rights of women, of LGBTIQ+ people and other minorities, including the Baha'i, must end. The Australian Greens support this urgency motion, and we are again calling on the Australian government to impose Magnitsky style sanctions and other targeted sanction measures, including financial asset freezes and the introduction of visa bans for people linked to the Iranian regime—including members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, key security officials, militia personnel and members of the morality police. In conclusion, what I will observe here is that we have heard from the government an argument that they've done enough already or that there is little more that they could do. The government of this country must engage with this issue, in solidarity, now. 16:34 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I agree, endorse and associate myself with every single thing that Senator Steele-John just said in this place. I was very pleased a few weeks ago to attend a rally with the good senator, which was convened by our wonderful Burmese diaspora, with respect to the human rights abuses which are occurring in Burma as we are here today. This is an important issue, and our Iranian diaspora in Australia expect us to act. This place adopted Magnitsky sanctions, adopted laws, which would enable them to be imposed. They need to be applied. The fact of the matter is that Western democracies around the world are moving ahead of us at a rate of knots. The death of Mahsa Amini has been an absolute lightning rod for disaffection in Iran. It has come to symbolise the repression and violence against Iranians from their own government. This country needs to act. We need to act. Hundreds have been killed. The journalist who actually broke the story with respect to Mahsa Amini, Niloofar Hamedi, has been arrested after she took photographs of and communicated on Twitter the reaction of Mahsa Amini's family to her death. She has actually been put in prison. This is unacceptable. The Australian government needs to act. This should not be about partisan politics. We should be above partisan politics in this regard. In relation to Senator Sheldon's point about us broadcasting the names of those who should be subject to these sanctions: you don't need to broadcast them. Just have a look at the press statement dated 26 October 2022 issued by Antony Blinken, Secretary of State of the United States. They actually list the people who are subject to Magnitsky-style sanctions. They're already on the public record. I will go through the categories because these are the people who need to be held accountable for the atrocities and the brutalities that are occurring in Iran today. The first category: six officials in the government of Iran responsible for or complicit in serious human rights abuses who hold leadership positions within Iran's prison system, including at Evin Prison, and in the provinces of Sistan, Baluchistan and Kurdistan, among others. You can read their names. The US Department of State acted on 26 October 2022. We're nearly in December. What are we waiting for? The second category: three individuals serving as commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who have been at the forefront of the brutality. Again, they've been identified as individuals directly responsible for the suppression of peaceful protests and the arrest of peaceful protesters. The third category: those people associated with what's referred to as the Ravin Academy, which engages in cybersecurity and the training of hackers, who are being used to stifle freedom of speech in Iran. The fourth category: the Iranian commander in chief of police in Isfahan province, who has engaged in gross violations of human rights, namely the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of peaceful protesters. The names of these people are here. They're already the subject of sanctions imposed by the United States. What are we waiting for? The Iranian diaspora in Australia expect us to act, and we should act in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Iran. There is no reason not to wait. I listen to and respect the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I know she cares deeply about these issues—I don't suggest otherwise—but there is potentially a systemic problem here. There is a systemic problem, in my view, in terms of Australia's response to human rights abuses, whether or not they occur in Myanmar, Sudan, Tigray, Ethiopia or, in this case, Iran. We've got these sanctions on the books. The rest of the world moves, and, for some reason, we don't move when we should move, when there's a moral obligation to move. That's what we should do. That's why this resolution is important. I'm sure all senators here would agree with the sentiments behind this resolution, but we need to act to enforce human rights. 16:39 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise in strong support of this motion today, and on behalf of the Australian Greens we stand with all of the women and girls and people of Iran. They have a government that is killing them. It is unfathomable to privileged people like us here in Australia where, whilst our democracy has its problems, we are essentially safe from being shot at by our own government. This is an extremely, deeply distressing issue, and I appreciate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made some representations to the ambassador and made some appropriate remarks by Twitter a month or so ago. But it is not enough. If you feel it—and I think you do—you've just got to follow through with some action. As has been said by many of the previous contributors to this discussion, most of the world has already done this. It's not like we're daring to go out on a limb and lead here, which wouldn't be such a problem if we were. But everybody else has already imposed sanctions. They are already taking really strong action and sending a really strong message that it is not acceptable to tell people—to tell women—what they can or cannot wear. And it's certainly not acceptable to arrest people and then kill them because they haven't got their headscarf on properly or their pants are too tight. It is inconceivable that our government is not doing more to stop this sort of treatment of people in another nation. There are so many things that could be done. My colleague and many of the other speakers have gone through the Magnitsky-style sanctions that could be employed. But, frankly, we should also be declaring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organisation. We should be immediately moving to withdraw the Iranian regime from the Commission on the Status of Women. These are concrete measures that could and should be taken by the Australian government and that we would not be alone in taking. I was so proud to stand at a Brisbane rally—and I give a massive shout-out to the strong Brisbane Iranian community who are holding successive rallies, as I'm sure is happening right around the country. These people are strong and determined. They deserve safety in their own country, and they deserve a government that they have the right to vote for and vote out. I hope that this strength and resilience and sheer bravery and courage of the women, girls and people of Iran will ultimately lead to a democratic system for them, and I want the Australian government to do everything it can to send the message that we are with you. That is what we want for you too, that you get to make your own decisions about your own lives and your own government. I don't think that's too much to ask. Again, I was so proud and privileged to stand with those people in Brisbane. I now have a beautiful little plaque that says, 'Women. Life. Freedom' that I have put with pride in my parliamentary office. It reminds us of the job we have to do here to stand up for the rights of women, girls and people everywhere, not just in our own nation. 16:42 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Chandler for moving this motion. It is indeed a matter of urgency. It's been almost 70 days since Mahsa Amini was murdered. We continue to hear news of shocking developments, including the beating and killing of teenage girls in school raids orchestrated by Iranian security services. This regime is clearly very willing to escalate its violent oppression of women and girls who refuse to be silenced in their ever-louder calls for freedom. I am in awe of the courage and bravery of Iranians in standing up against this regime's draconian laws. They are risking imprisonment, they are risking death. Over 300 people have been killed since the protests began, including more than 40 children. The regime apparently believe these protests are an existential threat to their grip on power, and I believe it's beyond time to move from soft diplomacy with a regime such as this to targeted sanctions. In recent weeks I have had the privilege of attending protests here in Canberra, standing alongside the Iranian Australian community and others in our community. While these crimes may be happening thousands of kilometres away, our local community is feeling the pain closely. I want to thank everyone who has written to me, called my office or come to Parliament House to keep this issue front and centre. I hear you, and I stand with you. We hear with you and stand with you. I have written to Minister Wong twice, calling on the government to apply targeted sanctions on Iranian officials. I applaud Minister Wong's willingness to speak in support of the Iranian people, but clearly now it's time for more action from the government. 16:44 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to associate myself with the contributions that have been made by those senators across the political divide who are calling for action today. The wave of protests in Iran following the death of 22-year-old Jina (Mahsa) Amini, which are now two and a bit months long, continue. In the last week alone, 72 people have been killed in the brutal repression of protests. This takes the total number of people killed to at least 416, more than 50 of them children. Thousands upon thousands more have been arrested, and now the regime is threatening to execute those protesters. The UN has described the situation as critical. All of this is part of an ongoing, brutal crackdown against protest and dissent. It's largely young people, the future of Iran, who are calling for basic human rights that we take for granted: democracy and freedom. Their rallying cry is 'women, life, freedom'. The crackdown has been particularly severe in the Kurdish areas of Iran. Martial law has been imposed in Mahabad. Convoys of armed forces are moving towards cities of Iranian Kurdistan, and some of the deadliest violence has been directed against other minorities, including the Baluchi community. We cannot let the Iranian government use this as an opportunity for further genocide. What has been clearest throughout these recent months is the bravery of the people of Iran, and we've seen that on the streets and out the front of this parliament. Both their staunch, unwavering courage in the face of terror and brutality and the enormous solidarity of Iranians who are rallying and protesting in the diaspora are powerful, inspiring and important. We're saying today: we hear you. I watched as the Iranian soccer team stood silent while the anthem played at the World Cup. It gave me chills. We've watched videos of women removing their scarves, cutting their hair and walking bravely towards security forces. They want us to stand up and act. The people of Iran are stepping up, and we need to stand with them. That means immediate and comprehensive Magnitsky sanctions against that awful regime, targeting the criminal leadership, not the people of Iran. It means taking action with the powers this parliament gave the government to act. It means solidarity. 16:46 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Every single day in Iran, the basic freedoms and rights of the Uranian people are being violated, and every day that the Albanese government does nothing and refuses to take a stand is another day that more innocent lives are lost. Authoritarian regimes around the world are taking the lives of innocent people. We see this clearly in Ukraine, we see it in China and we're seeing it writ large in Iran. We cannot allow these authoritarian regimes to ignore the international rules based order. The detainee diplomacy undertaken by the Iranian regime when it the jailed Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert for around three years was just one symbol of the despicable acts of this regime and its complete disregard for the principles of law and human rights, including freedom of speech. Countries like Canada are leading the world in standing up for women's rights by sanctioning Iran. Canada's measures prohibit dealings with several individuals and entities, effectively freezing any assets they may hold in Canada and banning them from the country. Australia needs to follow this lead. We need to stand up for the people of Iran with everything that we can do. We can do more, because at the moment this government is not doing anything but talking. Australia needs to follow in the footsteps of like-minded countries, like Canada, the US and the UK, and impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on Iran and its regime. This should include financial asset freezes and travel bans against members of the revolutionary guard, the morality police and other key officials, as well as financial sanctions against the government. We now can take these actions due to the coalition government signing into law the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021, which we did in December last year. The coalition have made it clear to the government that we will provide bipartisan support for Australia to do the same. Statecraft is a responsibility of government, and sanctions are a tool of statecraft. The government is doing nothing. We hear lots of rhetoric from the table and we see the media performances—still, nothing is happening. The government said, and we heard this in estimates that other week, that the charge d'affaires, the Deputy Head of Mission of the Iranian embassy had been called in by a first assistant secretary of DFAT. Why hasn't the Foreign Minister called in the Deputy Head of Mission? Why has it been left to a lowly official from DFAT? Surely we can send a stronger signal than that! The Iranian community of Australia is calling loudly for the Australian government to do more. They are outraged that nothing that has been done—completely outraged. I've spoken now at four rallies in Melbourne and here in Canberra, and the amount of sadness and horror they are witnessing back home, and the anger that they are feeling that nothing is happening here, is palpable. Yet this government ignores them. We need to be able to stand up for the people of Iran. We need to be able to show that we care about human rights and about the rights of women and children, and not to stand by idly while people are being shot in the street for exercising a right that we would fight for here in Australia. This government is all words and no action, and I call on the Albanese government to do more, to bring in sanctions and to stand up for the people of Iran. The coalition government brought in sanctions against the Russians after the invasion—we did it within days, and we had the support of the opposition. We are giving you our support to do the same against the Iranian regime. A di vision having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, I believe the ayes have it. The division is cancelled. The ayes have it. Senator Scarr 282997 I'm just seeking some clarification for Hansard as to how the division was cancelled. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator Pratt? I understand it was cancelled at the request of the Labor Party. Senator Pratt I0T Acting Deputy President, I'm happy to put that on the record. Sport: Fossil Fuel Sponsorship 79 16:57 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 The President has also received the following letter, dated 23 November 2022, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: "The need for the Senate to support the banning of fossil fuel sponsorship in sport, recognising the leadership shown recently by prominent athletes speaking out against fossil fuel companies sponsoring sport organisations". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 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'll ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly. 16:58 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to support the banning of fossil fuel sponsorship in sport, recognising the leadership shown recently by prominent athletes speaking out against fossil fuel companies sponsoring sport organisations. This country loves sport. Our athletes are our children's role models. For First Nations communities, sport has played a role in our gatherings and celebrations since before colonisation, bringing people together and strengthening our culture. Recently, we have been seeing more and more athletes, fans and community leaders taking action for climate justice. This shows the next generation what good leadership looks like, in caring for our country and our communities. Climate change is making our country sick, and fossil fuel companies are continuing to destroy our lands, our waters and our skies, fuelling climate change and killing us. Fossil fuels are the new tobacco. When we realised that tobacco had serious consequences to our health, we decided that the companies responsible for these harms had no place in sponsoring the sports teams and athletes we love. Now, as this country suffers devastating floods and fires, our athletes and everyday people are taking a stand to say that these dirty polluters have lost their social licence and have no place in sponsoring our beloved sports teams and players. In an attempt to regain this social licence, these dirty companies are pumping millions of dollars into sponsoring some of our biggest sports teams and events, giving an estimated $14 million a year to national sporting teams, not to mention the millions in donations they give to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party every year to keep this destructive industry alive. Recent polling shows that a majority of Australians believe that fossil fuel sponsorship is the new cigarette sponsorship, and that fossil fuel companies should be banned from sponsoring national sports teams. This research shows that fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to sportswash our national teams and major events. Given that gas, coal and oil companies are accelerating the harmful impacts of climate change and extreme weather events, it's unsurprising that Australians and our athletes want these companies out of sport. As the only party in this place that does not accept donations from the polluting companies that are destroying our country and the globe, the Greens welcome and support the leadership shown by our deadly Noongar sister netballer Donnell Wallam, Noongar ex-AFL player Daniel Kickert, and Australian test captain Pat Cummins in taking a stand against racist mining companies and fighting for climate justice. In voicing their objections to fossil fuel companies sponsoring their teams, these athletes are using their influence for positive change. That should be commended. The Greens want fossil fuel companies to be banned from all forms of advertising and sponsorships, including sponsoring any sporting team, organisation or event. If the government chooses to ignore the leadership of these athletes, whilst they get selfies with them and stand on podiums, which is quite hypocritical, they will be showing where their allegiances really lie: not with our athletes and not with our communities, but with their mates in the fossil fuel industry who no longer have permission to continue destroying our country and polluting the planet. 17:03 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Opponents of conventional energy companies and their involvement in sports sponsorship are determined to cut Australia's zinc-covered nose off despite its face. Australia has always been a world leader in sport, but it now appears we want to lead the world in hypocrisy. Many professional sporting teams are coming under pressure to cut all ties with energy resources companies. But if they were really serious, that would mean no more flying to games, no more diesel-fuelled team buses, no more night games unless the stadium lights run on a completely renewable energy, which may prove difficult to date on a dark windless night. The same with air-conditioning in the rooms and coaches boxes. Boots and sneakers are out, and mouthguards, plastic drink bottles, goalposts, playing apparel, clubs, bats, balls and supporters' gear too. And fans will have to stand, because plastic grandstand seating is also out. Did anyone tell them these products were all made from minerals or petroleum resources? Professional sport would not exist without the by-products of key mineral and energy commodities like coal, oil and gas. I'm looking forward to seeing if this government is going to reject this radical position, or whether it will say somehow that we're too good for the over $40 billion worth of royalties and company taxes paid by resources companies, and that we don't want to accept their money. Are we also too good for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who accept salaries and wages from resource companies? Are we too good for them as well? Recently Hancock Prospecting, Woodside and Alinta Energy came under attack for the crime of daring to help our athletes play sport for a living, earn millions of dollars and bask in the adoration of fans. The truth is that much of professional and community sport is made possible because of Australian resources. For instance, Hancock Prospecting ploughs money into minor sports that don't get the big sponsors, such as rowing, volleyball and synchronised swimming. Community sporting bodies represent mums and dads who take kids to sporting fields, ovals and stadiums right across the country every weekend and during the week, so it's people like Mrs Rinehart and our great resources companies who are putting their hands in their pockets and allowing these things to happen. Sadly, some sports stars, the Greens, most of the Labor Party, the teals and green Independents don't seem to realise that traditional dispatchable energy from conventional sources is pivotal to our ability to live first-class lifestyles. They also ignore the fact that almost all the big energy companies have publicly and firmly committed to reducing their own emissions. They employ the most environmental scientists and do the most environmental studies, outside of the public sector. They sponsor programs for underprivileged and Indigenous youth that don't garner the big headlines, and many of these programs are in regional areas, where young people don't have access to the best coaching, the best facilities and the decent equipment available in the cities. Under these circumstances it's hard enough for a country kid to crack the big time, but now we're being told that we have to put another obstacle in their way. Criticism of energy company sponsorship ignores the fact that regional sports clubs run on shoestring budgets, chook raffles and sponsorships from resource companies and the local businesses that supply these companies. What virtue-signalling, inner-city professional athletes call sportswashing is actually direct community benefit to struggling regional towns. Resources companies support regional communities with infrastructure such as pools, housing, libraries and sports facilities. The world is transitioning to renewable energy, but we can't just snap our fingers and end the use of coal, oil and gas. The demonisation of energy companies is truly astonishing because without them we wouldn't have lights, heating, computers, mobile phones and myriad other First World conveniences. People can have views, but the views being expressed currently are extreme and ignore the fact of energy requirements in this country now and into the future. 17:08 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Sport has the ability to bring communities together, to share a common purpose and to teach us all important life lessons. Our incredible Australian sporting heroes have a role to play in moving society forward. Players need to be heard on important matters and need to have avenues to voice their support for or dissatisfaction with any issues they have in the workplace. We need to make sure players are being listened to regarding issues in their sport, including sponsorship. The emerging issue of players speaking on their sport's choice of sponsor reflects broader conversations that Australians are having around the country on social, environmental and cultural issues. This is, however, a matter for the individual sports and their governing bodies. What's important is our sporting environments should have modern Australian workplaces where athletes are entitled to collective bargaining and the ability to fight for wages and conditions. The Albanese Labor government's investment in sport is about getting more Australians involved in sport, bringing communities together, boosting the economy and supporting our elite athletes to pursue success on the global stage. We recognise the importance of sport being safe, fair and inclusive for all so that every Australian can feel the rush only sport can bring you. Last month I had the honour of participating in a panel discussion run by the Bachar Houli Foundation's Girls Leadership program. We focused on the experience of Muslim women in leadership roles, the ups and downs they experienced and the importance of getting involved in community sport. The best part was hearing from young women, from all different backgrounds and all ages, about how much they love playing sport. It was remarkable and inspiring to see their resilience in the face of obstacles and their enthusiasm to be the change that they want to see in the world. They recounted how participating in sport helped improve their physical and mental health, develop their self-confidence, establish their place in society and build leadership skills. I'm not much of an athlete myself, but I do know how important sport is to the communities we represent and how it brings people together and improves people's confidence and their engagement in the community. This is an important period for Australian sports. We bring together Australia's sport community and celebrate the upcoming green-and-gold runway of major sporting events in the lead-up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We have an incredible opportunity to unite, inspire and build Australia through sport. It will provide us with wonderful opportunities to boost and inspire more community participation right across the nation. Regarding the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim, these matters are for the sports clubs and their governing bodies, but I stress again that it is important for us to remember that our sporting environments are still workplaces. Our incredible Australian athletes, like any other worker, should have a say in their workplace environment and conditions. 17:11 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As has been pointed out, Australians love their sport. Climate change is threatening our way of life in Australia and it is affecting sport. This is happening now. Sport is already feeling the effects of climate change. I think it's really important to remember that in the context of this debate on this urgency motion. We are seeing sporting clubs not being able to insure against bushfire or flood damage and we are seeing pitches being too hard to play on during droughts. This is having an effect already. We hear the arguments for fossil fuel sponsorship in sport. You do need sponsors in sport. That's clear. Professional sports and community sports often rely on it. But fossil fuel companies represent only 3.5 per cent of sport and business partnerships, so this is not an insurmountable challenge. Clearly a lot of sports are working on this. It's curious that many of these fossil fuel companies do not sell a product to consumers, so clearly this is about social licence. The concern of athletes is that they are being used to extend the social licence of an industry when many of those companies have no plans of winding down and transitioning. That's the concern. We're not saying turn off the tap on fossil fuels today; we're saying that we need to be part of a transition, and many of these companies who sponsor sport don't have a plan. I'm out of time, but I do want to point out that this is the first time the Greens have mentioned fossil fuel sponsorship of sport. There is not adequate time to debate something like this before putting it to a vote in the Senate. This warrants much more debate. I am disappointed that we're going to hear a minute or two from senators and then we will vote on this. (Time expired) 17:14 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The reserves of hypocrisy within the Australian Greens party know no bounds. As I often comment, if only we could capture their hypocrisy and convert it into electricity. It would be the ultimate source of renewable power. It is infinite in its supply. Here we have an urgency motion from the Greens saying that they don't want any money from fossil fuels to fund sports in Australia. At every election that I've known in my time in this place, the Greens policy platform—which can't even be calculated on modern computers, according to the former Treasury secretary Ken Henry—has been funded by extra taxes on fossil fuels. The only way that they can pay for their political promises is from the funds of the coal and gas industries. If there weren't coal mines and gas fields in Australia, the Greens would have massive, massive black holes for their crazy plans for high-speed rail all around the country and for health care for everybody, no matter the cost—which we can't afford. Some of the plans that the Greens have are good things—I'd love to give health care to everybody—but all of them, in the Greens policy platform, are funded by fossil fuels. We have a motion here today in which the Greens are trying to deny this funding to other people—to Australian sports that struggle. A lot of sporting codes in Australia struggle to make ends meet. The high-profile ones do alright, but netball has been struggling. The Greens are trying to deny sports access to funding from fossil fuels but not themselves. If it weren't for fossil fuels—if we were serious about this motion—how would we fund our hospitals? Because most of that is coming from our coal and gas industries. We just had a budget that was handed down where a $50 billion increase: not the total amount, but a $50 billion increase came from higher coal and gas prices. We fund our public services in this country thanks to these large export industries. Coal is our biggest export; gas is our third-biggest export. The two together are 40 per cent of our nation's commodity exports. If we didn't have them, we wouldn't be able to fund ourselves. Certainly the Greens wouldn't be able to fund themselves without fossil fuels. 17:16 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Digging up and burning fossil fuels is destroying our climate and our environment. A recent report from Swinburne University is the first to quantify the number and value of coal, gas and oil sponsorships in Australian sport. It's not a small number. They spend $14 million to $18 million each year sponsoring 24 high-profile leagues and sports in Australia. Santos, Alinta, BHP and Woodside are all major sponsors. So why do they do it? Because, as the climate crisis intensifies, more and more people are aware that it is greedy, morally bankrupt fossil fuel companies that are fuelling this crisis. More people than ever can see the connection between the greed of fossil fuel corporations and the disastrous climate emergencies we see here and around the world. These fossil fuel corporations know that their social licence is fast evaporating, so they are scrambling to greenwash their environmental reputations by throwing money at high-profile, much-loved sporting leagues and teams. I came here from Pakistan, passionate about netball, cricket and soccer, and that passion has only grown while I've been here. Fossil fuel companies know that people here love sport. They know that when sports embrace their sponsorship and when athletes wear their names and their logos, it helps to normalise their existence and sanitise their reputation because of the community's love for sport. It is a tactic that's straight out of the playbook of other big, cashed-up, unscrupulous industries, such as the tobacco and gambling industries. Years of sponsorship of sporting teams, arts festivals and other community events position companies as good corporate citizens and locks in dependence on corporate goodwill. We must not accept that. We must not allow dirty, polluting fossil fuel companies to use sport to try and prolong their sorry existence while killing the planet. Just as we know fossil fuel sponsorship of sport needs to be banned, fossil fuel sponsorship of politicians also needs to be banned. Both Labor and the coalition are on a unity ticket when it comes to accepting dirty donations from fossil fuel companies. As a result, this place is crawling with fossil fuel lobbyists, and, sadly, big events in this place, like the Midwinter Ball, are sponsored by fossil fuel companies. It's no wonder that neither major party will call for an end to coal and gas, despite the overwhelming evidence that this is what we must do as a matter of climate science and as a matter of global justice. It takes courage to take a stand against powerful fossil fuel corporations. The major parties don't have that courage, but athletes, activists and sovereign owners do. I want to pay tribute to the brave athletes, especially in netball, cricket and the AFL, who are speaking up and refusing fossil fuel sponsorships. In particular I stand in solidarity with Diamonds player and Noongar woman Donnell Wallam for her immense courage, and say kudos to her team for backing her. They are speaking out about their values. They are reflecting the values of their communities and their fans. This is the type of courage that gives me hope for the future. 17:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Australian netball team rejected an offer of sponsorship from Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting because they refused to wear their logo. Who is this company our netballers rejected? Hancock Prospecting grew into one of Australia's largest companies on the strength of their Roy Hill iron ore mine. Iron ore is still their largest product—Hancock mines coal as well. Since the Greens seem to be ignorant of metallurgy, let me educate you lot: the only way to make steel is using coal to heat iron ore. The Greens talk about green steel as an alternative—it's not. Green steel is so brittle it's unusable. There's no realistic chance of green steel ever being used to replace coal-fired steel. Green steel does have a role as a photo opportunity to sustain the green steel lie designed to destroy the coal and steel industries for whatever visible reason the Greens advocate. Australian netballers rejected steel. Senator McKim's motion is rejecting steel. I hope that all those who feel as Senator McKim does go home tonight and rip out their steel stoves, turn off their steel fridges, throw away their steel microwaves, their cutlery, their knives, their saucepans—you get the idea. How will Senator McKim and his steel haters get home? Not in a car or even an electric vehicle. Those are made from steel and other products made with coal and hydrocarbon fuels. These other products include aluminium, glass, fibreglass and plastic. They can't travel in a train, bus, cycle or scooter—more steel, more oil. Walking home is, of course, an option—just avoid steel-capped work boots or any boots made with steel tools. The hypocrisy in this motion is breathtaking! Hancock Prospecting enjoys strong relations with the local Aboriginal communities, who benefited over the last seven years from mining royalties totalling $300 million. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation—coal-powered and steel-built thanks to miners. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x When the chamber shows some respect, I will call the next senator. Up until the last speaker, there was respect shown to other speakers, and I ask and remind senators to listen in silence. Senator Cox, you have the call. 17:22 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Advertisements intend to build positive attitudes, emotion and connection with products and with companies. Corporations seek out sponsorship opportunities as part of their marketing campaigns. Unfortunately, fossil fuel companies are no different. As the Australian Greens spokesperson on resources, a proud Western Australian and a long-suffering Fremantle Dockers fan, it pains me how these worlds actually collide. Woodside Energy's merger with BHP's oil and gas assets makes it one of the 10 biggest independent energy production companies in the world. Its 9.1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions make it the ninth highest emitter in Australia for 2021. The Fremantle Dockers have had a very long relationship with Woodside Energy. In fact, Woodside Energy has been the major sponsor of the Dockers since 2010. They signed on to support the Dockers AFLW team in 2017. This sponsorship deal was renewed last year in October and is worth approximately $2 million. I am not the only purple-scarf wearer who doesn't want Woodside's climate-wrecking hands all over my footy team. Former Dockers player and my cousin Dale Kickett stood with former manager Gerard McNeill alongside former Premier Carmen Lawrence, award-winning author Tim Winton, Nobel Prize winner and climate scientist Bill Hare, and former climate change adviser to Woodside Alex Hillman at a press conference last month to call for an end to Woodside's sponsorship of our beloved club. Fossil fuels have absolutely no place in sport while this climate is in crisis. I echo the high-profile Australians who do not want the Dockers' good name to be used by a corporation to enhance its reputation when its massive profit-making activities are threatening our environment, our health and our cultural heritage. Players, members and supporters are speaking out because that's what they actually care about—they care about the planet. They don't want athletes branded with fossil fuel logos, granting social license to operate in our communities. State capture is in fact real. Both of my colleagues, Senator Thorpe and Senator Faruqi, have outlined this. When Rio Tinto actually blew up the Juukan caves, they lost their sponsorship deal with the AFL; this shows that it's not about commercial risk and it's not about the money. There are other notable athletes that have spoken out about the injustices in sports sponsorship, and they have also been named by my colleagues. The Australian test and one-day international captain, Pat Cummings, recently urged Cricket Australia to look for other, ethical sponsors. Proud Noongar woman and sister Donnell Wallam challenged Netball Australia about their multimillion dollar contract with Hancock Prospecting because of racism—not because of the history of the company and what they think they've done for black people in this country, but because of the racism that exists and that is history. She won and she made a spectacular debut days later, and I thank them for their leadership. I ask those in this place to follow their lead. We can't continue to tackle the climate crisis if we are opening up new coal and gas projects, and there are currently 114 of those new coal and gas projects in the investment pipeline. If fossil fuel companies won't back off and put our health, the health of our children and the health of our environment before their profits, their power and their influence, then we as the parliament need to intervene in the same way as we did with big tobacco—stopping them from plastering their toxic brands everywhere they please. We are out of time. The CSIRO State of the climate 2022report released today tells us that Australia's climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 degrees since the national records began. The Paris Agreement requires us to keep that temperature below 1.5 degrees, and we are already heading to the point of no return. If you don't believe in doing everything that it takes to secure a future for our children on this planet, then you don't deserve a seat in this place. Opening up new coal and gas projects will blow the emissions reduction target that Labor have already agreed to legislate in this place. In particular, opening up Woodside's Scarborough project alone will blow these targets. We need a moratorium on new coal and gas, and we need to ban fossil fuel sponsorships for sporting teams, organisations and events. It's time to stop the greenwashing of fossil fuel companies who are misleading the Australian public about their climate credentials. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe at the request of Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:31]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)

 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. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Human Rights: Iran 85 17:35 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On the previous matter of urgency in the name of Senator Chandler, which was called for the ayes, I incorrectly advised my deputy whip to call for a division. That's why the division was cancelled. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I'd like to know the Labor Party's position on it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x We've had the explanation and there's no point of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U No, the explanation was on why it was cancelled. I'd like to know the government's position. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I had given Senator Scarr the call. 17:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Perhaps we could ask for some clarification. I understand Senator Urquhart's explanation with respect to the cancellation of the division. But the Hansard record will show that there were noes stated in the chamber before the division was called. Those noes came from the government benches, so I think it would be useful to know whether the clarification is that those noes were unintended, or were they intended? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hanson-Young, would you like to restate your point of order? 17:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I too would like clarification as to who voiced the noes in the chamber, or, indeed, what the government's position is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Urquhart, I'll give you the opportunity if you feel you need to clarify the position. 17:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I think I've outlined that I gave the wrong advice to the deputy whip in terms of the position of calling the division, and I have clarified the incorrectness of my decision. 17:36 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland For the record, can I make it clear that there were no noes coming from the opposition benches. 17:37 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd also like to make it clear there were no noes coming from the Greens benches in relation to that motion. 17:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania For the sake of confidence in the chamber, I will declare that there were no noes in the chamber from the Labor Party. PETITIONS 85 PETITIONS Western Australia: Environment 85 17:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I table a non-conforming petition regarding the destruction of the Gelorup Wildlife Corridor in WA, which has received 25,028 signatures. It's a big petition. I'm grateful to all of the volunteers working on that campaign. I understand that the whips have agreed to give leave for me to table it, so I table the petition. DOCUMENTS 85 DOCUMENTS Australian Taxation Office 85 17:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I really appreciate the opportunity to take note of this important document in relation to the government co-contribution for low-income earners, which of course is one of the various superannuation programs that the Commonwealth government runs. It is very important to note in relation to this matter that there has been significant debate in this chamber and beyond this parliament about the government's approach to the matter of superannuation transparency. One of the first acts of this government in this space was in relation to the stripping of transparency measures that were put in place in the last parliament and required the disclosure of payments from superannuation funds to unions. Minister Jones in the other place decided that was his No. 1 priority—to strip transparency so that workers could no longer see how much money their super fund was paying to a union. It's really shameful stuff. After a debate in in this place, where Senator Pocock moved a disallowance and there was extensive discussion about why on earth this was a priority of the government, I note that there are now additional disallowances that have appeared on the papers, including one from Senator McKim. I think that is an important development. It also reminds me of the reporting in today's newspaper about the prospect of improving the transparency arrangements in this area across the board. I think everyone wants to see the compulsory savings scheme being the most transparent of any government program because we are going into people's pay packets, taking 10½ per cent of their money and sending it off to someone else to manage. The idea that we are not going to allow transparency is fundamentally flawed, and that's why I welcome the proposed disallowance from Senator McKim and the other initiatives that have been engaged in this space. We want to see complete transparency. Whether the funds are being run by a financial services business—be it an insurance company or a bank—or by an employer group, a trade union or a collective, the idea that their workers and their members are prohibited from seeing when their money is being sent off to a related party is fundamentally flawed and cannot stand. The last time we considered this matter in this chamber, the disallowance was defeated, and we now have a situation where funds have been able to table their members' statements without the transparency which appeared in our regulations from government. In the case of AustralianSuper, which is one of the household names, they are now able to conceal $100 million in related party transactions. In addition to that, they are able to hide $1 million in payments to unions. We don't know which unions those funds have been paid to. As a result of this change made by Minister Jones, you can now receive more transparent information about the whereabouts of superannuation contributions from the AEC website than you can from the members' statement. The last time I looked, there weren't too many members of superannuation funds trawling through the paper records of the Electoral Commission to work out where their money had been paid to a union. The whole point of the members' statements was to make it digestible so that a person could say, 'Okay, this fund that I'm a member of is paying $100,000 to union A,' or, 'This fund that I'm a member of is paying $500 to a financial services company, related party B.' That principle has been removed from these regulations, but I am now much more confident than I was a month ago that we will be returning transparency for these members, who should be able to see exactly where their money is being paid. I look forward to seeing that, and I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make these remarks in relation to this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 86 COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 86 Delegated Legislation Monitor 86 17:44 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I present Delegated legislation monitor No. 8 of 2022 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence relating to the report. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I also rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated legislation monitorNo. 8 of 2022. This monitor details matters relating the committee's scrutiny of 77 disallowable legislative instruments and nine instruments exempt from disallowance. It also details the committee's ongoing consideration of instruments registered in previous periods and concludes its engagement with the relevant minister in relation to three instruments. In tabling the monitor, I draw the chamber's attention to the committee's longstanding concern about exemptions from parliamentary oversight in delegated legislation. The committee has consistently raised scrutiny concerns about the exemption of delegated legislation from disallowance and its impact on parliamentary oversight, including holding an inquiry into this issue in the last parliament. It has been particularly concerned with instruments exempt from disallowance under the Biosecurity Act 2015, known as the Biosecurity Act, including those made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I note the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has raised similar concerns in its reports. The Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022 was introduced into the Senate on 28 September 2022. This bill amends the Biosecurity Act, including to introduce three new provisions which are exempt from disallowance, some of which may trespass on personal rights and liberties. When this bill was introduced in the Senate, the committee wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Health and Aged Care requesting that they move amendments to remove all of the exemptions from disallowance in the Biosecurity Act to facilitate appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over these matters. Unfortunately, both ministers advised that they would not progress amendments to remove the exemptions. Disallowance is the most important tool that the parliament has at its disposal to maintain control of delegated legislation. The committee appreciates that during an emergency it is necessary for governments to take urgent and decisive action. However, parliament must have effective oversight of these decisions. The committee has considered this issue since the start of the pandemic and particularly as part of its inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. It has found that delegated legislation, including emergency related delegated legislation, should not be exempt from disallowance, except in exceptional circumstances. In coming to this conclusion, the committee has carefully considered the arguments justifying why it is appropriate for instruments made under the Biosecurity Act to remain exempt from disallowance. The common justifications for these exemptions were the need to act urgently, to avoid uncertainty, that the instruments were solely scientific or technical, and that disallowance would put at risk human health or undermine Australia's agriculture sector. The committee does not accept these justifications for exemptions from disallowance. The disallowance process does not inhibit the immediate commencement of instruments and does not invalidate actions taken under instruments prior to disallowance, therefore potential disallowance would not prevent the government from taking critical or emergency action to respond to biosecurity risks and threats. Further, the committee does not accept the argument that measures in delegated legislation are so scientific or technical that parliament should not have oversight over the measures being introduced. Lastly, the instances where an instrument is disallowed by the Senate are rare and only occur after careful consideration, but nevertheless a crucial check on executive power. The risk that a law will be repealed is simply the risk associated with the system of democratic lawmaking established by the Constitution. Moreover, such justifications are framed by a pejorative view of the parliamentary process which assumes that parliamentary lawmaking is necessarily less rational than executive lawmaking. The disallowance process is intended to facilitate appropriate debate and scrutiny of the use of emergency powers to help ensure such powers are not misused. For this reason, the committee asks the ministers to reconsider their decision not to progress amendments to remove the exemptions from disallowance in the Biosecurity Act. Taking this action would address the longstanding, significant scrutiny concern held by the committee, and the scrutiny of bills committee. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 8 of 2022. Question agreed to. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 87 Scrutiny Digest 87 17:49 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I present, on behalf of Senator Dean Smith, the Scrutiny digest 7 of 2022 from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to. Sena 300134 by leave—on behalf of Senator Dean Smith I present the tabling statement. The statement read as follows — 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 7 of 2022. The Digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced into the Parliament. Each bill is assessed against the committee's technical scrutiny principles, 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 7 of 2022 reports on the committee's consideration of 20 bills which were introduced into the Parliament during recent sitting weeks as well as amendments introduced in relation to 9 bills. The committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to 8 newly introduced bills. The Digest also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to 5 bills. I particularly wish to highlight the committee's comments in relation to the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022. Among other things, the bill seeks to amend the Biosecurity Act to introduce 3 new exemption from disallowance provisions. The committee raised scrutiny concerns in relation to these provisions in Digest 6 of 2022 and has now received the minister's response. The committee has longstanding scrutiny concerns regarding provisions in the Biosecurity Act which allow delegated legislation to be exempt from parliamentary disallowance. Scrutiny principle (v) requires the committee to report in respect of bills which insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. Exemptions from disallowance undermine the ability of Parliament to properly undertake its scrutiny functions and, therefore, have significant implications for the system of responsible and representative government established by the Constitution and for the maintenance of Parliament's constitutionally conferred law-making functions. Any exemption from disallowance should be considered in the context of its interaction with these twin considerations. The importance of disallowance was recognised by the Senate in June 2021 when it 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 should be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with the expectation that the claim will only be justified in rare cases. In Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2022, the committee requested the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's advice as to whether the bill can be amended to provide that the 3 new instrument-making powers are subject to disallowance. Additionally, the committee recently wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Health and Aged Care seeking advice as to whether the Biosecurity Act itself can be amended so that all instruments made under the Act are subject to disallowance. The committee also had the opportunity to discuss these matters with departmental officials at a private briefing of the committee. Both ministers have advised that, in their opinion, no amendments are necessary. Several arguments have been made justifying why it is appropriate for instruments made under the Biosecurity Act to remain exempt from disallowance. The committee has disagreed with all of these justifications. Justifications have, for example, focussed on the need for government to take urgent, decisive action based on scientific and technical considerations. However, the committee has consistently emphasised that an instrument being subject to the usual parliamentary disallowance process does not prevent the government from acting quickly and decisively as it does not impede the immediate commencement and enforceability of an instrument. Further, the committee has emphasised that Parliament is capable of understanding scientific or technical issues. The committee has noted that the mere fact that a matter is scientific or technical is not an adequate justification for removing democratic oversight over a law of the Commonwealth. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has also argued that disallowance of some instruments, or the mere possibility of disallowance, would undermine certainty and have significant regulatory impact. However, the committee has consistently made the point that, while disallowance is rare in practice, the process itself is an important opportunity for the Parliament to work in a constructive manner with the executive to enhance delegated legislation to ensure that it operates and functions within the boundaries placed upon it by the Parliament. In addition, parliamentarians are accountable to their electors in relation to how they exercise their law-making function and are perfectly capable of considering any impact that disallowance would have as part of their deliberations over an instrument. I take this opportunity to emphasise that the committee's concerns relate to matters of technical scrutiny and not to matters of policy. By continuing to make instruments under the Biosecurity Act which are exempt from disallowance, Parliament's constitutional role as the primary institution responsible for making law is undermined. The committee will continue to actively consider multiple options to emphasise and enforce its strong and consistent views in relation to the exemption from disallowance provisions that are found in both the biosecurity bill that is currently before the Parliament and in the Biosecurity Act as a whole. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis of exemption from disallowance provisions in the Biosecurity Act. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2022 to the Senate. Senator CADELL 300134 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee 89 Membership 89 17:50 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:50 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania 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. Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee — Appointed—Senator Cadell Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator Cadell Appointed—Senator Van Question agreed to. BILLS 89 BILLS Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 89

Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 89 17:51 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The President has received messages from the House of Representatives informing the Senate that the House has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the bills. High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 89

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

Second Reading 89 17:52 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I was in continuation before we got rudely interrupted by hard markers, which are an essential part of business in this place. Just to wrap up my remarks: before I was interrupted by the hard marker, I was waxing lyrical about the 'Utopian' nature of high-speed rail in this country. I'd mentioned how many attempts we've had at setting up high-speed rail agencies, doing investigations, doing desktop audits, looking at maps on tabletops and considering high-speed rail around the world and what could and could not work for Australia. We continue to come up against the fact that we've got a huge continent and a sparse population. We all agree that we need high-speed rail. We all agree that high-speed rail would be a very good thing for passengers, for freight and for the environment, as we heard from the Greens in their contribution. We all agree it's a great thing. What we don't agree on is how to go about it. I implore the government: instead of renaming another agency—instead of shuffling papers and bums on seats—actually look at the work that has been done. Look at the work that our government initiated with the Newcastle-to-Sydney faster rail upgrades, take that work and let's see something come to fruition instead of starting all over again and reinventing the wheel. If it's not Utopia, it's Groundhog Day. Quite frankly, I, for one, am well and truly over it and would just like to see movement at the station—pardon the pun. 17:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022—or, as I prefer to call it, the 'elect Chris Minns as New South Wales Premier bill'. It's not a coincidence that this bill provides for the national high-speed rail network proposal to start with just one section: between Sydney and Newcastle—just in time for the New South Wales state election in the coming March. Oh, the photo opportunities and announcements! I can see them now—for example, 'Vote Labor and we will get you to work in 40 minutes.' What dishonesty. What treachery. I appreciate that that the Central Coast and Hunter are now dormitory suburbs of Sydney. Every day, more than 100,000 residents use rail and road on their daily trek to Sydney for work. High-speed would be a wonderful way to make that trip. One problem with making that promise is that high-speed rail on that route is never going to happen. It's impossible. Here's why. The route consist of mountain ranges, massive sandstone cliffs and waterways. Unless the High Speed Authority sprinkles magic dust, there is no way it will make a straight, flat track with the solid foundations necessary to sustain high-speed rail through the Hawksbury, Central Coast and Lower Hunter. The current discussion involves sending high-speed rail along the existing alignment through the Central Coast, through the Gosford waterfront, through residential areas to Wyong and then via YE into the lower Hunter. The area's geography makes any other route almost impossible, at least without substantial environmental impact, meaning massive, long tunnels and cuttings through national parks and equally long and heavily engineered bridges across the frequent waterways and soft ground. Anything can be done at a cost, although the cost here will ensure a white elephant for taxpayers that will never recover the investment. I shudder to think how much the tickets will cost, certainly more than working families can afford, the families who are being targeted with this false, deceptive promise. While Australia does need a modern rail network connecting our capital cities, airports and major ports, high-speed rail is not the answer. The federal government last examined the possibility of building a 1,748-kilometre high-speed rail link from Brisbane to Melbourne in 2013, when the cost was estimated at $114 billion, with the Sydney-to-Newcastle section costed at $17.9 billion. At that time, by the way, the Inland Rail was costed at $4 billion. It's now $20 billion. That's five times higher. So I would expect this same inaccuracy factor would apply to the fast rail, costing out the Sydney-to-Hunter section alone at $90 billion in today's dollars. The Grattan Institute has found high-speed rail projects have little chance of passing the cost-benefit test based on the typical discount rate used for transport infrastructure of about seven per cent. Marion Terrill, the current director of the Grattan Institute's Transport and City Program, has said: Australia is just not suited to high-speed rail because our cities are too small and too far apart. Too small means the passenger volume will not be sufficient to justify the capital expenditure, leading to prohibitive fares or massive government subsidies—or, most likely, both. To illustrate this point, when New South Wales XPT trains were purchased in 1982, the intention was to create fast rail in New South Wales. The XPTs are designed to travel at just 150 kilometres per hour. So what stopped fast rail at that time was the inability to build a track capable of supporting those speeds. This is essential for safety and reliability. Our rail lines curve around too much. The Great Dividing Range provides serious hurdles to fast rail, and our waterways along the coast complicate the flat sections that we do have. For clarity, fast rail is generally speeds up to 150 kilometres per hour. High-speed rail is 250 kilometres per hour to 300 kilometres per hour. Fast rail requires entirely different and substantially more expensive rolling stock and track. It may be feasible with a large government investment to upgrade existing rail lines on the Sydney-to-Hunter route to travel express services at fast-rail pace rather than high-speed rail pace. One Nation would strongly support immediate feasibility studies on upgrading the Sydney-to-Hunter line to fast rail since New South Wales already has the rolling stock. Senator McKenzie will be moving an amendment to this bill that will introduce Productivity Commission oversight of proposals and a transparent reporting system. If this amendment is passed, this bill will gain the checks and balances it should have had all along, and One Nation will support it. Without those checks and balances, One Nation will oppose this bill. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and we don't lie for any reason—certainly not to the public to get votes. 18:00 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'd like to start by thanking all senators for their contributions to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 and acknowledge Senators McKenzie, Rice, Davey and Roberts for their contributions to the debate here in the Senate. The bill before us will establish the High Speed Rail Authority to develop, advise on and plan for a high-speed rail system in Australia. It will deliver on our election commitment and will plan for high-speed rail along Australia's east coast, from Melbourne to Brisbane. Fast rail connections between Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle will be progressed as the first priority, and $500 million will be allocated to start the necessary corridor acquisition planning and early works. I note Senator McKenzie's remarks regarding the need to ensure regional communities are consulted on the planning and the development of the high-speed rail network, and I can assure the Senate that, unlike the National Party in their delivery of the Inland Rail, the government will undertake extensive consultations with affected communities regarding the design and delivery of the high-speed rail network. In relation to the amendments proposed by Senator McKenzie, I can advise that, while we appreciate the contribution by the opposition to this debate, respectfully, we will not be supporting their amendments. I will speak to this in more detail during consideration; however, in terms of transparency measures, there are other processes now, through both annual reports and corporate plans, that provide the opportunity for the progress reporting to take place. In relation to the board, we are seeking to establish a skills based board, and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has advised, in the other place, that it would be great for regional Australians to be members of the board. However, as it is such a complex project, we can't have a quota system, which is what the Nationals are now proposing in this amendment. I note that this is not something that the National Party supports in other areas, such as the representation of women in parliament or in the coalition. I also acknowledge Senator Rice's sentiments about ensuring that the delivery and the financing of the high-speed rail network stay in public hands. The government's position is that the consideration of the funding, financing, construction and operation of the high-speed rail network is not a matter for this legislation to determine but should be part of the High Speed Rail Authority's planning work, once established. I also note Senator Davey's comments around the distinction between faster and high-speed rail. To clarify: faster and fast rail refer to trains that can operate at up to 250 kilometres per hour; high-speed rail refers to services capable of travelling at speeds in excess of 250 kilometres per hour. I also note Senator Roberts' contribution to the bill's debate. I note also that Senator David Pocock and his office have engaged constructively with the minister and her office in recent days, and I thank him for his engagement. I understand the senator has proposed a number of amendments, which, I can advise, the government will be supporting. These amendments relate to ensuring that appointments to the board of the High Speed Rail Authority and the position of CEO are the result of a merit based process. There is also an amendment concerning the disclosure of interests of board members to the minister, in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The minister has already made clear in the other place that the board of the High Speed Rail Authority has to be a skills based board and that it is absolutely the determination of the government to appoint people based on merit. It is important for us to note the approach of the former government, who stacked their boards with Liberal and National mates. The coalition government was focused more on jobs for the boys than on delivering for the community. We all know what they did with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Infrastructure Australia board. I conclude my remarks by again thanking all senators for their contributions today and by saying to the Senate that high-speed rail offers many choices. Without it you have to live closer to where you work or you will lose time with your family when you are stuck in traffic. With it you have more choice and can move out of the city, taking pressure off our outer suburbs, and into a regional area, with all the benefits that brings, and still have more time with your family. Who wouldn't want that? Without high-speed rail your connection to work is more difficult and also your connection to your wider family and friends. Catching up more often becomes more possible with high-speed rail. High-speed rail can get you between cities faster and rail can take you right into a city centre. You can leave your car, taxi or rideshare behind, knowing that in the process you are doing more to help lower the carbon in the atmosphere. It's not only an easy people mover but also a job creator and an industry builder. We want our regions to grow and prosper. We want the economy to be stronger and deliver benefits right across the country, not just in the city centres. We want public transport to be part of the green economy. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 91 18:08 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1679 together: (1) Clause 8, page 6 (line 22), after "relevant parties", insert "(including extensive consultation with local communities)". (2) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In performing the functions mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), the Authority must: (a) arrange for the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia to: (i) undertake economic assessments and cost benefit analyses; and (ii) give the Authority a written report of each assessment and analysis; and (b) publish a copy of each of those reports on the Authority's website within 14 days after the report is given to the Authority. (3) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Minister must ensure that at least one Board member is a person who is from rural or regional Australia. (4) Clause 47, page 24 (line 5), after "plan,", insert "the requirement to give progress reports,". (5) Page 24 (after line 15), after clause 48, insert: 48A Progress reports (1) After the end of each progress report period, the Board must prepare a report on the performance of the Authority's functions, including the progress of: (a) the policy development and planning mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(a); and (b) the construction or extension of a railway mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(b) or (c). (2) The Board 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 end of the progress report period. (3) For the purposes of this section, progress report period means: (a) the period of 6 months starting on the day this section commences; and (b) each subsequent 6-month period. Note: This section applies in addition to section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with annual performance statements for Commonwealth entities). I've moved these amendments with great pride. Whilst I note the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport's speech during the second reading debate and thank her for the gracious way she and the government have listened to the contributions of senators on this bill and recognised our particular concerns with the bill and obviously some of the things we like about the bill, I'm concerned about her dismissal and assumption that those from rural and regional Australia don't have the requisite merit, experience or, might I say, intelligence to actually serve on the board of an authority such as this. Minister, I completely reject the fact that the National Party is seeking to insert quotas, per se, onto the membership of this board. It is absolutely not our public policy to support quotas. We seek merit based appointments always, but we probably cast the net a little wider than the Labor Party would traditionally in what meritorious appointments might look like. We have learnt by hard experience that without someone around the table who has the lived experience of working, living, growing up and seeing a positive future for rural and regional communities then that perspective is often not taken into account. Given that the Labor Party's specific focus for this authority is in regional New South Wales then I would suggest that it would actually help the authority to do very good work on behalf of the government to have somebody from rural and regional Australia around the table. Similarly, I'm incredibly disappointed that the government won't be supporting our very sound and sensible amendment—particularly, again, when it comes to ensuring that the authority will consult with local communities. Despite your attempts at cheap political points, Assistant Minister, with respect to previous governments and consultation, no-one gets a gold star when it comes to consulting adequately with rural and regional communities. We can always do things better. I would hope that in my time in this place—and, Minister, you've been in this place for quite a while as well—processes have improved over time. That should be the case particularly in this portfolio area, because the minister who announces the project is very rarely the minister who cuts the ribbon on the project. These are long-term commitments and it's very often the case in this pipeline of infrastructure build for our country that the current government accepts and commits to continue projects of the previous government. That's because the level of planning and design, the tender process and the arrangements which have to be set up with local and state governments are long and arduous. They're negotiated outcomes which often take a lot of time, and a lot of effort and money are put into them. So respect for previous decisions needs to underpin this. The other aspects of our amendments that I'd like to go to actually increase accountability and transparency, something this government made a big song and dance about in coming to power. And yet when we put sensible amendments in front of them, when the Greens put sensible amendments in front of them and when Senator Pocock puts sensible amendments in front of them to increase the transparency, accountability and reporting mechanisms—not just for the Senate but, indeed, for the Australian taxpayer—around these arrangements those guys think they have it all sorted out. Well, it turns out that they don't. The Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne is a classic case in point, where those opposite have turned their backs absolutely on their own stated objectives—that they would only fund projects that use the Infrastructure Australia methodology. Within five months they have broken their own promise to themselves, let alone their promise to the Australian people. Far be it from me, in opposition, to be the only one in this chamber suggesting that they might need a little help with increasing transparency and accountability in these spaces; other political parties and other senators want to assist them to be their best selves within government. I think that's a good thing and not a bad thing. I have described our amendments, but I also have some questions which I would like the minister to answer. In my speech in the second reading debate I actually went to the explanatory memorandum for this bill, where it explains that this bill will have no financial impact on the budget bottom line. Can you confirm the explanatory memorandum's statement to that effect? 18:14 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania First of all, I do wish to deal with your comments around the government's view of community members. Of course, I reject your remarks absolutely. I take them as political pointscoring by the opposition. They couldn't be further from the truth. I will go through the five amendments that you have put forward. I just want to step through the reasons that the government will not be supporting these amendments, and then I'll go to the question that you've placed before me. As to your first amendment: we, in the government, believe that this is an unnecessary amendment. The legislation already states that the authority will be consulting, liaising and negotiating with states and territories and other relevant parties, and it is inherent that the community will be a core part of the work of the High Speed Rail Authority. I'll go now to amendment (2). Infrastructure Australia already evaluates business cases for transport infrastructure projects with an Australian government funding contribution of $250 million or more. In addition, business case evaluation reports are publicly released by Infrastructure Australia. I'll move on to amendment (3). Again, the government will be opposing this amendment. The board will consist of five members, who will be appointed based on the appropriate skills mix. And it may well be, Senator McKenzie, that the board members will have experience in regional Australia or be from regional Australia, but the prime view of the government is that they have to have the appropriate set of skills to be on the board. Amendment (4) we will be opposing. Information on the progress of the High Speed Rail Authority will be publicly available via its annual report and corporation plan. And your last amendment, amendment (5), we will also be opposing, as information on the progress, as I said, of the High Speed Rail Authority will be publicly available through its annual report and the corporate plan. Now, on the other question that you put to me, I will just take some advice. So, going to your question, the cost of establishing the High Speed Rail Authority will be offset by existing funding set aside for the National Faster Rail Agency. 18:18 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales With high speed rail, the first $500 million investment was for going from Sydney to my neck of the woods in the Hunter. Is there a break-up of that $500 million between planning and acquisition of line range? 18:18 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania That information isn't available. That's what the authority will be in place to do. It will be their job to ensure that progress will be made, and the immediate priority of any updated analysis will be their first priority of work. 18:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Minister, do we have a timetable for when that break-up might be available—as in, 12 months or 24 months? Do we know when that work will be done? 18:19 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania As I've said, once the authority is established, work will begin on the planning and the overseeing of the construction of a reliable, safe and efficient high speed rail network. As soon as we can get this bill in place and the authority is established, the sooner the better as this is going to be a huge opportunity for Australia. And I know that the opposition is supportive of the bill and the opportunities that high-speed rail will bring.. 18:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales It now takes longer to go from Broadmeadows station in the Hunter to Sydney than it did in the 1950s on the Newcastle Flyer. If we haven't got a timetable for when the planning will be finished, do we have a timetable for when the line may be finished? Even a decade would do. 18:20 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania No, I can't give you that information here today. 18:20 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, following up on Senator Cadell's questions, in the budget you've put down half a billion dollars for this agency. You can't tell us when it's starting, you can't tell us if it will even be laying a track in the next decade, and yet your government put $2.2 billion on the table in the budget for an uncosted project for Daniel Andrews who is heading to the polls on Saturday. When will that project be laying a track in Victoria for the $2.2 billion that you've committed to rail in your budget? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 Senator McKenzie, before I give the call to the minister, I'd ask you to use the Premier's appropriate title, if this is a line you wish to pursue. 18:21 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I'll use the title that we don't use in Victoria: Premier Andrews. 18:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania First of all the government has committed $500 million for corridor acquisition, has committed $500 million to securing the Sydney to Newcastle corridor for the high-speed rail network is the key first stage. I think everyone knows what the $500 million is seeking to do. That funding includes funding to start corridor acquisitions, planning and early works and includes working closely with the New South Wales government. The High Speed Rail Authority will work collaboratively with the Australian government and the New South Wales government to determine the best way to deliver this project. Before allocating the funding the government will consider advice from the authority. That is the situation, and it's not unusual. I think I've been very clear. The bill is a very simple bill. It is also very clear, and I commend the bill to the Senate. 18:22 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria In the explanatory memorandum it said that the bill will have no financial impact as any impacts will be offset. The budget actually says that there will be a cost. There has been a cost to the budget to the tune of $18 million. Can you confirm where the $18 million was offset from? What projects were cut to find the $18 million? 18:23 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'm getting some advice and will get back to you. 18:23 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I have a follow-up question to your previous answer. In response to Senator McKenzie's question about the $500 million, you said that the $500 million is to get the corridor for Sydney to Newcastle—correct me if I'm wrong—and you mentioned acquisitions. However, when I was before Senate estimates and I put the question to Mr Hallinan from the department, he specifically said that the $500 million was for setting up the agency and commencing preparation for corridors. When pressed he implied that there would be no acquisitions undertaken under the first stage because it would be the commencement of conversations and negotiations. Can you clarify, if Mr Hallinan was wrong, what portion of the $500 million is being set aside for corridor acquisitions? Or is that $500 million to fund the new agency, the new bureaucracy, to start work on conversations that have already started? 18:25 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The $500 million is not about establishing the authority. I stand by the answer I gave to Senator Cadell's question earlier, which is—and I'm happy to repeat it—that the Australian government has committed $500 million to securing the Sydney-to-Newcastle corridor of the high-speed rail network as a key first stage. This includes funding to start corridor acquisition, planning and early work and includes working closely with the New South Wales government. The High Speed Rail Authority will work collaboratively with the Australian government and the New South Wales government to determine the best way to deliver the project. Before allocating funding, the government will consider advice from the authority. 18:25 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales So Mr Hallinan got it wrong—is that what I'm hearing? He did say it was for setting up the agency, and you have now twice said it is for securing corridor acquisition. I am happy to put a written question back to the department to seek clarification from them, but I seem to be experiencing quite regularly where the departments are saying one thing and the government is saying another thing. I'm just wondering when we are all going to be singing off the same hymn sheet. 18:26 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania It'll be pretty shortly, I think. My understanding is that the department have clarified their response. 18:26 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales This is a final question from me and then I will sit down and listen. With regard to the establishment of the High Speed Rail Authority and the disbandment of the National Faster Rail Agency, are you able to advise whether those staff were transferred over? Is that why there hasn't been a budget impact, as per your explanatory memorandum? The explanatory memorandum says there's no budget impact and any costs will be met through savings. So I'm wondering if the disbanding of the National Faster Rail Agency is one of those cost savings. What's happened to those staff? Are they being transferred to the new authority or are they being settled elsewhere? 18:28 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania To answer your question, the agency is still in existence and transitional arrangements are still being undertaken. The National Faster Rail Agency will cease as an executive agency, with its functions being absorbed by the authority. 18:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Senator McKenzie's comments about shifting money from other regions, especially rural regions, down to Victoria to help current Premier Dan Andrews in a difficult election reminded me of the Rockhampton ring-road, which is urgently needed and to which $700 million to $800 million had been committed. Land had been purchased. Families had moved into Rockhampton to start work. Companies locally had bought construction equipment. It was cancelled—just like that—to send money to help shore up the corrupt regime of Premier Dan Andrews. Does the government realise that shifting these things for electoral gain, that may occur in the Hunter due to a proposed way-off high-speed rail connection, costs money and lives in other regions—particularly, in my concern here, in Central Queensland with the Rockhampton ring-road being shelved? What is the government doing to protect the people who have already made a commitment with their lives to this ring-road? 18:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Roberts, but we are here speaking about the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022. If you want to come along to estimates and ask questions around the Rockhampton ring-road, that question— Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Yes, there you are. We have a spillover on Friday, and I think we have a spillover the following Friday, so there's plenty of time, Senator Roberts, to come and ask those questions. We did go through, prosecuted by Senator McKenzie and Senator Canavan, the Rockhampton ring-road during the last session of estimates. But you're more than happy to come along, I'm sure, to ask those questions. 18:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I will ask one final question of the minister. Once I set the context for the Rockhampton ring-road, my question really boiled down to: is the government aware that when it rips money out of the regions and sends it to another area for electoral gain that that is a cost to the regions and it hurts and sometimes kills people? 18:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I have to reject the whole premise of your question. The Commonwealth is working with the Queensland government on how to commence early works on the Rockhampton ring-road project, as you probably are aware, but I completely reject the whole premise of the question you just put. 18:32 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for your comments earlier on the bill. I note that you pointed out concerns about the way the coalition have appointed people to boards. I would like to note that there was nothing to rectify that in this legislation to set up the High Speed Rail Authority. There was no transparent framework to do that. I thank the government for their support of my amendments to do that, to ensure that Australians know that the people on the board and running the High Speed Rail Authority have the right skills, represent different areas of the country and will do the job there. Given that there would be hundreds of people appointed to boards by the government, I'm interested to hear from the government if it is committed to reviewing those appointments to ensure that there is a transparent process in all of these authorities and for these boards. 18:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Pocock. I'll just seek some advice. While I'm getting specific advice, I'm not sure if you were in the chamber when I made it clear that we were supporting the three amendments that you are opposing. They go to selection for appointment and disclosure of interests. As I've already said, the appointments to this board will be on the basis of relevant qualifications, knowledge, skills and/or experience—so it's merit-based. I can't speak about the situation regarding other boards, board members and appointments other than what we have here before us today. 18:35 Senator 207825 Victoria McKENZIE (—) (): I have one more question, Temporary Chair McGrath, and then I will seek your guidance, because I know that Senator Pocock has amendments he would like to move but we're in a period of no divisions, which makes it all a bit iffy. Assistant Minister, I'd like to know about the $18 million which isn't mentioned in the explanatory memorandum but which appeared in the budget as being offset out of the Infrastructure portfolio. What projects have been cut to offset the $18 million? 18:36 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania No projects were cut to fund the authority's establishment. As I understand it—and I'm happy to be corrected—part of that $18 million was money already allocated to the National Faster Rail Agency. That was $10 million, Senator McKenzie—just anticipating what you might ask me next—and the remainder was from the department. 18:36 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I just want to clarify this: on the advice you've been given, the offset has come from the department and from the Faster Rail Agency? 18:37 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Yes. 18:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Where will the staff be located for this authority? Will they be Canberra based? 18:37 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania At this early stage, those are the decisions still yet to be made. 18:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of Senator Cadell, who has had to leave at this stage of the debate, I'll say that he will put in a request about this, given that the authority's work will be between Sydney and his hometown of Newcastle. It would show great faith in the government's apparent newfound belief in rural and regional Australia if those jobs could be located in the Hunter. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The question before the chair is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1679 be agreed to. A division has been called but it won't be held now, it will be put off until tomorrow. 18:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1750: (1) Clause 16, page 11 (lines 13 to 15), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) A person must not be appointed as a Board Member unless the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience; and (b) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that: (i) was merit--based; and (ii) included public advertising of the position. (5) Paragraph (4)(b) does not prevent the Minister: (a) taking affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women to positions; or (b) taking into consideration appropriate representation among the States, Territories and local government areas in relation to appointments to positions. (6) Paragraph (4)(b) does not apply in relation to the reappointment of a person who, immediately before the start of the period of reappointment, holds office as a Board Member under a previous appointment under subsection (1). (2) Page 13 (after line 19), after clause 22, insert: 22A Disclosure of interests (1) A disclosure by a Board Member under section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with the duty to disclose interests) must be made to the Minister. (2) Subsection (1) applies in addition to any rules made for the purposes of that section. (3) For the purposes of this Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the Board member is taken not to have complied with section 29 of that Act if the Board member does not comply with subsection (1) of this section. (3) Clause 36, page 20 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (5) A person must not be appointed as the CEO unless the Board is satisfied that: (a) the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience; and (b) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that: (i) was merit--based; and (ii) included public advertising of the position. (6) Paragraph (5)(b) does not prevent the Board: (a) taking affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women to the position; or (b) taking into consideration appropriate representation among the States, Territories and local government areas in relation to an appointment to the position. (7) Paragraph (5)(b) does not apply in relation to the reappointment of a person who, immediately before the start of the period of reappointment, holds office as the CEO under a previous appointment under subsection (1). 18:40 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania For the record, the government will be supporting these three amendments. Amendment (1) goes to the selection for appointment. These amendments relate to ensuring that the appointments to the board of the High Speed Rail Authority are a result of a merit based process, which, of course, they will be. The minister has already made clear in the other place that the board of the High Speed Rail Authority has to be a skills based board, and it is absolutely the determination of the government to appoint people based on merit. Amendment (2) goes to disclosure of interest. The government supports these amendments concerning the disclosure of interests of board members to the minister in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. We also support amendment (3). These amendments relate to ensuring that the position of the CEO of the High Speed Rail Authority is the result of a merit based process. 18:41 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I note that the Greens will also be supporting these amendments. 18:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'd thank Minister King and her office for the way in which they engaged with me on this piece of legislation. I appreciate their commitment to ensuring that all appointments are merit based. Clearly, this is something that is expected by the communities that we come from. Australians want to have peace of mind that the people who get into influential positions are getting there not because of who they know but because they have the right skills and leadership ability to make a difference in those positions. This is clearly a problem that we are grappling with in politics. A recent report by the Grattan Institute found that, across all federal government appointees, seven per cent had a direct political connection. That figure rose to 21 per cent amongst positions that were considered well paid, prestigious and powerful. This is something that my community is telling me they want to end. I welcome the government's commitment to that, and I really look forward, over this next parliament, to ensuring that all boards have a very clear, transparent process for appointments so that the public can see that we are advertising, that people can have input and that we get the right people for the job. We also need a range of experiences in something like high-speed rail. I think it's really important that people from a regional and rural background can have input. We also need more women in positions of leadership when it comes to the High Speed Rail Authority. A quick glance at the National Women in Transport website shows at least 36 women who are currently leading infrastructure organisations or the infrastructure and transport arms of multinationals operating in Australia. The talent is there, and I look forward to seeing who is appointed. I'm sure they will do well leading this authority, which is a really important authority for us. It's going to be a huge challenge, but, looking at the future of Australia, it is something that most Australians want to see happen at some point—sooner rather than later. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The question is that amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 1750, moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We won't be able to go further with this bill at this point because of the deferred division. Progress reported. Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting. Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 97

Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Second Reading 97 18:45 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's a delight to be asked to provide a contribution to the debate on the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 on behalf of the opposition, and to put our position on the record. At the outset, it's good to go through a bit of background and context for this legislation. The purpose of this bill is to give effect to six measures that were introduced by the former coalition government, and also a new measure by the government to cease the 10 per cent discount for the upfront payment of student contributions. Six of the elements of this bill were included in legislation introduced by the former coalition government that lapsed at the end of the previous parliament. The measures include the extension of the FEE-HELP loan exemption, to apply until the end of the year 2022, with retrospective effect from 1 January. FEE-HELP is the Commonwealth loan program available to domestic full-fee paying students to pay their tuition fees. It usually has a 20 per cent loan fee applied to undergraduate students. The students that access FEE-HELP generally study with private higher education providers, which is an interesting fact. The coalition waived the FEE-HELP loan fee as a COVID-19 relief measure from 1 April 2020 through to 31 December 2021. This measure provides a further exemption of the loan fee to 31 December 2022. This measure encourages students accessing FEE-HELP who have been financially impacted by the effects of the pandemic to commence or continue their studies. This measure is expected to assist approximately 30,000 students, which is certainly no small number. The second measure contained in the six measures I have already referenced was to support the development of microcredential courses by extending FEE-HELP eligibility for students accessing these. This element of the bill supports those wishing to undertake what is known as a microcredential unit of study by allowing them to access the same FEE-HELP for this unit. The larger microcredential pilot program, which was introduced by the coalition government, encourages universities to develop and deliver new microcredential programs supporting the national priority to build a highly skilled workforce through more flexible and industry-focused models of higher education. Microcredential courses, for those wondering, are standalone single-unit certification courses. They're not formal degrees and they're not qualifications per se, but they still have an assessment component and provide additional or complimentary learning to upskill the workforce. This is very important given the dynamic nature of workforce needs and the time capacity of students and those entering into studies. The feedback from industry, students and providers has shown that short courses are an important study option, providing flexibility and fast-tracked higher education qualifications. The former government provided $32½ million to the higher education sector to develop these courses to domestic and international students. Scaling up industry-focused microcredentials was one of the seven recommendations of the University-Industry Collaboration in Teaching and Learning review. The review findings complimented the coalition's support for the delivery of innovative higher education models, research commercialisation and reform of the Australian Qualifications Framework. This specific change supports students—typically those that are full-fee paying and engaging in one of those courses—to access FEE-HELP, which provides them with a loan, for want of a better term, so they can access these courses and upskill or reskill to a new profession. Complementary to this change, the bill clarifies the status of enabling courses in the context of the lifetime student learning entitlement. The student learning entitlement is a lifetime limit on the amount of Commonwealth support a student can receive through a Commonwealth supported place, or a CSP. It is currently at seven years. An enabling course is a course to assist students who are new to academic study to pursue a higher education—for example, essay writing. This change is extremely important to ensure that students are fully equipped with these essential skills to succeed in their higher education studies without it impacting on their course attainment for PhD or master's qualifications. The bill also makes some technical changes requiring students to provide their USI to their higher education provider on or at the time of a place offer to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. From 1 January 2021, as part of the government's commitments to extend the USI to higher education, students have been required to have a USI to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. This measure is a technical change requiring that students also provide their USI to their higher education provider to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. Higher education providers are required to report students' USIs to the secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Without an explicit requirement for students to give their USIs to their providers, their providers have had difficulties complying with their reporting requirements. This has in turn impacted the broader policy aim for the USI to be used as a student identifier across the tertiary education sector. This measure addresses the issue by clearly linking the provision of a valid USI to the student's provider with their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. A further change is to clarify the requirements for New Zealand citizens who want to access HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP. This measure will introduce a requirement for New Zealand citizens to be resident in Australia for the duration of a unit of study to be eligible for HECS-HELP assistance and FEE-HELP assistance for that specific unit. This measure will ensure consistency across the citizenship and residency requirements for non-Australian citizens accessing Commonwealth assistance. Under the existing framework New Zealand students have been able to undertake study outside of Australia while accessing FEE-HELP, contrary to the policy intention of citizenship and residency requirements for non-Australian citizens for Commonwealth assistance. Current students will not be affected by this measure. This measure will affect only students seeking Commonwealth assistance in relation to a unit of study with a census date on or after 1 January 2023. The bill no longer includes the legislative changes for the HELP for Rural Doctors and Nurse Practitioners initiative that provides a debt reduction for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. We have been assured by the government that these legislative changes will be included in a separate bill—the Higher Education Support Act Amendment (Measures No. 1) Bill 2022—which will be introduced. We are grateful to the government for continuing to support this important measure which will encourage initial employment and increase retention of doctors and nurse practitioners in those communities across Australia that I've already mentioned. Last but not least, the bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to end the 10 per cent Higher Education Contribution Scheme-Higher Education Loan Program, HECS-HELP, discount for upfront payment of student contribution amounts from 1 January 2023. The bill removes the 10 per cent discount for students who pay all or part of their student contribution amount upfront, with a minimum $500 payment. This discount has a long history. It was initially introduced by the Hawke Labor government and has been amended over the years to its current iteration. It was a measure that helped students bring forward their payments, should they wish to do so, and reduce the debt burden they would face once they concluded their studies and reached the required salary level, which I'm advised in this financial year is $48,361. Contrary to the rhetoric that is often floated around this issue, this measure was not designed to benefit rich kids. Students from all walks of life and of different ages and courses benefited from this measure. In concluding I would like to reflect on the coalition's strong record in backing the higher education sector. The last budget of the coalition government committed almost $20 billion towards higher education. This was part of our record $115 billion in total of government funding for universities between 2019 and 2024, with $95.2 billion of that going to teaching and learning and $19.8 billion of that total being allocated to research. In the 2020-21 budget we funded an additional 30,000 places as part of 100,000 more places over the decade. We also provided $32½ million over four years to develop and pilot microcredentials, as I referenced in an earlier part of this speech. We put an additional $1 billion into university research during the pandemic, and in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 budgets we committed $277.9 million for higher education providers to offer short course places in 2020-21 and $298½ million for national priority and innovative places from 2021 through to 2024. Based on data provided by universities in October 2021, around 12,586 short course places were estimated to have been delivered in the year 2021. We also had a strong commitment to regional education, with funding delivered for regional university centres to help students in regional and remote areas access higher education. Our $242.7 million Trailblazer Universities Program is helping to support Australia's best minds to produce cutting-edge research that can be used to deliver real-world outcomes. The coalition will continue to back measures that strengthen and grow our higher education sector, ensuring that all Australians, should they wish to do so, can access a world-class higher education, whether they live in the cities, the regions or the remote parts of our country. The former coalition government is very proud of our commitment to this sector and what it has provided to those who are beneficiaries of it and the future they can derive no matter where they live. 18:57 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill. The Greens support this bill, which extends the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption to 31 December 2022. It extends FEE-HELP to students who participate in microcredential pilot courses, clarifies that enabling courses will not count towards a student's lifetime limit of Commonwealth support, provides that New Zealand citizens are eligible for HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP if they are resident in Australia for the duration of the unit and makes other minor amendments to the Higher Education Support Act. Importantly, the bill also removes the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount for students who pay their student fees upfront. Let me be clear about our position on student fees: they should not exist. Education is a basic right; it is not a privilege. From early childhood through to school, TAFE and university, education should be fee-free, no matter who you are or what stage of life you are in. People who have gone through higher education are struggling under thousands and thousands of dollars of debt, and students have to keep signing up for more debt as they go through uni. For so many of them, the Liberals' disastrous job-ready graduates bill only burdened them with more and more student debt. As I stated during the debate on the job-ready graduates bill, when the 10 per cent discount was brought back by the coalition with the help of One Nation, this measure is actually unfair. It only benefits the wealthy who can afford to pay their fees upfront. A vast majority of people cannot, and it provides nothing for the many students who simply cannot afford to make upfront payments on their student fees and are forced to accumulate a higher and higher debt. This is why education has to be universal and free. That's fair, that's consistent and that's equitable for all. So we commend the government for scrapping the discount. Removing the 10 per cent discount is supported by the National Union of Students as well as the National Tertiary Education Union. But there is so much more that the government needs to do in higher education. Higher education is a right, higher education institutions are a public good, higher education must be built on the principles of democracy and equity, and we have moved a fair way away from that in this country. Every fee hike and funding cut in the Job-ready Graduates Package needs to be scrapped, and they need to be scrapped urgently. Labor's excuse that further changes will only happen after the accord process is not good enough. There is no need for further evidence when it comes to the Job-ready Graduates Package. Labor committee members themselves said, in their report on the inquiry into the bill, that the Job-ready Graduates Package attacked 'the core research purpose of universities'; that it would 'result in inequitable levels of student debt, especially for women'; that it would 'have a significantly worse impact on women and First Nations people'; that it would undermine the quality of university teaching; and that it was so deeply flawed it could not be repaired with amendments. You are in government now. Scrap it! Students, academics, staff and universities are being harmed by the funding cuts and fee hikes of the job-ready graduates bill—and that's happening right now, under the government's watch, and will continue, unless the government takes the necessary first step to make higher education in this country fairer and gets rid of the Liberals' fee hikes and funding cuts. And I urge them to have the courage to do this—not after the accord, but right now. 19:01 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to speak to the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, because it is a terrific continuation of the agenda of the previous government, recognising the challenges around higher education. I'll come to the purposes of the bill shortly, but I just want to start by making some comments around the coalition's program on higher education that we were working on. In its last budget, the coalition government committed almost $20 billion towards higher education. This is part of our record $115.1 billion in total government funding for universities between 2019 and 2024—$95.2 billion in teaching and learning, and $19.8 billion in research. And, in the 2020-21 budget, we funded an additional 30,000 places, part of 100,000 more university places over the decade. We also have a strong commitment to regional education, so we delivered funding for regional university centres to help students in regional and remote areas access higher education. Our $242.7 million Trailblazer Universities Program is helping support Australia's best minds to produce cutting-edge research that can be used to deliver real-world outcomes. We also provided $32.5 million over four years to develop and pilot microcredentials. That element of supporting regional universities and regional places is critical. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the absolute pleasure of attending the business and law school annual lecture at James Cook University. This lecture was given by—well, I'll call him a young man, given he is about my age—a young man who graduated from high school in Charters Towers. He completed his schooling with no real decision about what he wanted to study, and so he put down a range of university options from education right through to law. He said that, when his father called out that he had got into university, when it came out in the papers that morning, he had to ask his father, 'Which course?' because he just wasn't sure. Anyway, he got into law, and he studied law in the old-fashioned way that a number of us here would remember—before computers; before laptops. He used the university library and the Dewey system, and researched, waiting for the best books to become available to complete his studies. And he was finally able to get into a residential college at James Cook University, which allowed him to live and study without riding his bike through the hot and humid weather of Townsville, and to complete that study successfully. This fellow has gone on to become a very well-respected lawyer and barrister in that state. He became a King's Counsel in Queensland, was the first Indigenous King's Counsel in Queensland and is now the first Indigenous Supreme Court judge. So Judge Lincoln Crowley is an impressive individual by any measure, but his ability to study locally and regionally gave him the opportunity to have a university education. It would have been a big challenge for his family if he had had to contemplate going further away to Brisbane or somewhere like that. So this support for regional education and for regional universities, like James Cook University, Central Queensland University and Charles Darwin University, is important. These are all important institutions that allow our young people from regional parts of the country to have the same access to higher education that those young people who live in capital cities already have and enjoy, where they can live either at home or with family but are not going thousands of kilometres away in order to complete their studies. This is a terrifically important part of an education agenda in a nation as large as ours. The six measures of this bill that was introduced by the coalition but which lapsed at the dissolution of parliament have been touched on, but I do want to extend a little more detail on them around the extension of the FEE-HELP loan exemptions which will apply until 31 December 2022, with that retrospective effect from 1 January 2022. That is very important because it is now so late in the year. It is important that retrospective element be applied to support the development of the microcredential courses by extending FEE-HELP eligibility for students accessing them. Strengthening the reporting requirements for unique student identifiers is another important of the administration element of this legislation. The legislation clarifies the status of enabling courses in the context of lifetime student learning entitlement, creates consistency for New Zealand citizens accessing Commonwealth assistance by requiring New Zealand citizens be resident in Australia for their eligible unit of study and makes minor and technical amendments to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011. What were also going to be a part of this bill were the legislative changes for the HELP for Rural Doctors and Nurse Practitioners initiative that provides a debt reduction for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practice in regional, rural or remote Australia. A critically important element is the identification of the MMS areas that this would be applicable to because, as everybody in this place knows, we are incredibly challenged by the number of general practitioners that we have in this nation. The Parliamentary Friends of General Practice—this fabulous bipartisan group, co-chaired by Dr Gordon Reid, Dr Sophie Scamps and I—had a breakfast earlier this week. The point was made by the incoming president that, when she graduated from medicine, 50 per cent of her class went on to become general practitioners. That number has now fallen to 13.5 per cent. That is a significant structural change in the way young people are making a decision about what sort of medicine they are going to practice. The challenges facing general practice are felt in the cities, but, more concerningly, there is an exceptional shortage of general practitioners in rural, regional and remote Australia. This is affecting the longer-term health outcomes for people who live in those regions, ending up with shorter life expectancy and poorer health outcomes. We've got terrific services like Heart of Australia, which Dr Rolf Gomes leads, taking specialist cardiology services—both CT and MRI—into regional places. There are people who just can't afford to travel to the bigger centres for that kind of medical care, and this is resulting in shorter life expectancy and reduced quality of life. I applaud those specialists who travel to the regions to ensure that regional, rural and remote people don't go without. The GP challenge is broad, so I look forward to the element that will come forward with support for general practitioners and nurses. It won't just be higher education support; it is also the sort of investment that encourages patients to access high-quality general practice care and that increases the amount for general practitioners who are offering that longer service and more complex patient care. It ensures that people who receive bulk-billing incentives and vulnerable people are all supported well. I'll have more to say on that when we come forward with that second part of these reforms—the Higher Education Support Act amendment measures which will be introduced later. This is a bill that I recommend to the Senate. I think it has broad support across the Senate because it provides for a continuation of the development and focus on higher education that the coalition had started, and a greater focus on those elements of microcredential courses in particular, as well as the clarification of the lifetime student learning entitlements. I think that the consistency for New Zealand citizens as they access higher education here in Australia will be well received because the most constant complaint of anyone dealing with government is when they find that things are not consistent or that there are definitional challenges. This is another way to continue constant improvement and ensure that legislation is clear and user-friendly. It helps with the outcome we're all searching for—which is to allow our young people the greatest opportunity to study, to go to higher education, to complete their work and to achieve their full potential, whatever that may be. Hopefully, they'll stay in the regional, rural and remote communities to support those places that they come from—that is a great thing to be able to do. It is the regional universities that provide that ability for young people who live in those remote places. There are some incredible programs going on—hub-and-spoke training programs that the more regional universities provide in terms of aged care and nursing support. They train people in their communities to be able to take on that higher education and to provide the services that are so desperately required in those places. It is a complex framework, the education system in this country. It has to serve a relatively small population over vast distances, over the states and territories, to try to find a consistent model that allows our youth to have their greatest opportunity as they go forward. I am the proud parent of three university students next year, and I think it is just terrific to see the myriad opportunities that are available to young people—much more so than when I went to university and we studied something for a career that we thought we would be in for the remainder of our lives. But there are now a broad range of opportunities and studies that allow a level of additional study or focus on specialty areas that provide an excellence that Australia has long been renowned for. I've just finished reading former senator Brett Mason's book, where he celebrates two great Australian academics, Oliphant and Florey, and the work that they did as Australians who went overseas, who progressed their areas of study in ways that were previously unthought of and who, in fact, were part of the solutions that solved the end of that great conflict, being penicillin and microwave radar. Australians do very well in this educational field, and these are just more amendments that will work towards greater simplification of the legislation. 19:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. The bill will improve a quality of access to higher education and support the government's commitment to building a highly skilled workforce. Our election commitment to remove the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount for upfront payments is projected to save $144 million over the forward estimates—a saving which will help fund the government's 20,000 new university places, which have been allocated to students who are underrepresented in our universities and which are also dedicated to those areas where we face skills challenges. It's another step forward for fairer access to higher education across the country. The extension of the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption for a further 12 months will support full-fee-paying undergraduates and their providers as the sector recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill also supports the development of innovative, flexible and industry focused higher education programs by extending FEE-HELP to the government's microcredential pilot. It improves the operation of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by clarifying the treatment of enabling courses and unique student identifier requirements, and by aligning HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP citizenship and residency requirements for New Zealand citizens across a Commonwealth supported place. Once again, I thank the senators for their contributions to this debate, and I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 102 19:18 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 19:18 Senator CH 39801 Queensland ISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022 102

Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

Second Reading 102 19:19 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The coalition supports the passage of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022. This bill is the culmination of work initiated by the former coalition government, and the coalition commends the government and the minister for continuing this important bill. In 1999, an agreement was reached between the Commonwealth government and Energy Resources of Australia that, upon the completion of mining activities at Ranger mine site in the Northern Territory, Energy Resources of Australia would take charge of rehabilitating the Ranger mine site. This was agreed upon by the government and Energy Resources Australia to ensure a commitment to the proper rehabilitation of the Ranger site. Stringent environmental standards were agreed upon as part of this agreement. Mining at Ranger ceased in January 2021 and the remediation is already underway. The current framework allows Energy Resources Australia, ERA, to undertake remediation work until January 2026. More than 20 years ago it was believed that ERA would only need five years to complete the remediation and rehabilitation works on the site. As a result, the authority set out a cease of operation for mining works in January 2021, with the authority lapsing on 8 January 2026. However, following consultation with the previous and current governments, it was concluded that, in order to fully rehabilitate the site to high contemporary standards, ERA would require more than the five years provided to complete the rehabilitation and monitoring required. In ERA's submission to the committee, they emphasise that attempting to finalise rehabilitation by 8 January 2026 is not feasible and will not meet the agreed objectives of stakeholders. ERA is committed to undertaking proper and thorough rehabilitation of the Ranger project area to a world-class standard. It has already commenced that work, but in order to rehabilitate the mine site to the standard it requires further time, beyond 8 January 2026. This bill extends the legislative framework surrounding the rehabilitation, ensuring that ERA can complete rehabilitation, close out the site, continue monitoring and return the land to the traditional owners. This bill does not provide any authority for further mining of the site, which follows ERA's commercial decision not to pursue any further mine site extensions in 2050. Rather, this bill's primary purpose is to enable the long-term remediation and monitoring of the site. Primarily, it amends the legislation to allow the remediation authority to be milestone based rather than time based, keeping the onus on the responsible company to complete the rehabilitation. The authorities created under this legislation will allow for the progressive close-out areas of the mining lease. This means that, as portions of the lease are considered to be fully rehabilitated, the land can be returned to the local community sooner. Brad Welsh, CEO of ERA, noticed the safeguards inserted as part of the bill. He stated: Further, the Bill entrenches a number of safeguards to ensure the involvement and agreement of the Traditional Owners is required, including: • a Rehabilitation Authority cannot be granted unless there is first an agreement in place between the Commonwealth and the NLC pursuant to ALRA; • the Minister is required to further consult with the NLC before any Rehabilitation Authority is granted; • before the Minister makes any declaration that an Authority no longer applies to part of the RPA because the Minister is satisfied the area is rehabilitated, the Minister must consult with the NLC; • before the Minister revokes an Authority, the Minister must be satisfied the area is rehabilitated, and the Minister must first consult with the NLC; and • before the Minister makes any variation to the conditions of an Authority, the Minister must consult with the NLC. These safeguards ensure that there remain proper procedures and checks throughout the extended rehabilitation and monitoring process. The coalition supports all mine rehabilitation being completed to high standards. Australia has some the most stringent, environmental and rehabilitative standards and processes in the world and supports ERA fulfilling their obligations to properly remediate the Ranger mine. The Ranger mine has served the country well over its years of operation, creating economic benefits for the country and local community, and providing jobs and employment services to the local population and the wider Northern Territory. As Ranger's operations have come to a close, the focus is on ensuring that the affected areas, which are small in size, are fully rehabilitated to ensure the protection of our natural environment. The environmental requirements that were set out in 1999 are of an incredibly high standard. ERA has affirmed their commitment to upholding these environmental requirements. As a result, through more modern appraisals of the requirements to successfully rehabilitate the site to these stringent standards, ERA have determined that the five years previously allocated are now not sufficient for the completion of rehabilitation operations and monitoring. The coalition accepted ERA's determination and, as part of our commitment to environmental rehabilitation, undertook processes to explore the options available to the government to allow for continued rehabilitation. There remain strict reporting requirements throughout the rehabilitative process, and these will remain with the implementation of this bill. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Supervising Scientist, in a submission to the committee, affirmed: ERA is required to submit an annually updated mine closure plan for Ranger which provides clear scientific evidence to demonstrate that the rehabilitation works proposed by ERA will achieve the rehabilitation objectives. The Ranger Mine Closure Plan is publicly released and subject to detailed assessment by regulators and stakeholders, including the Supervising Scientist, and requires approval from the Australian Government Minister for Resources and the Northern Territory Minister for Mining and Industry. The Supervising Scientist is undertaking a detailed rehabilitation verification process to provide certainty that all rehabilitation works are completed in strict accordance with the Ranger Mine Closure Plan and associated approvals. Strong environmental standards are commonplace across Australia's mining industry. Australia is a world leader in environmental practice. The resources industry employs large numbers of environmental scientists to ensure that environmental guidelines are met. Furthermore, the former coalition government made a very significant contribution to the protection, conservation and rehabilitation of our natural surroundings by delivering a strong record of achievement in the environmental portfolio. Just in our final term of government alone, we invested over $6 billion in programs, policies and measures to protect our natural environment. Collectively, all of this has led to the development and enforcement throughout Australia of some of the highest and most exacting environmental standards of the world. These apply to a very wide range of issues, including biodiversity, pollution, heritage, contamination, conservation, hazardous substances, recycling and waste and, in this case, mine site rehabilitation. Consultation on this bill has been extensive. The coalition and the government and the government of the Northern Territory all recognise the importance of proper rehabilitation of the Ranger site and ensured engagement with a wide range of relevant stakeholders on this bill. Traditional owners, the Northern Land Council and other Northern Territory bodies are supportive of the bill and have expressed their support for ERA fulfilling their obligation set out under the act to rehabilitate the Ranger site. Throughout the committee process, a number of stakeholders participated in the hearing on this bill. This process firmly certified support for this bill and the continued rehabilitative works being conducted by ERA. This wide-ranging engagement includes the Australian Conservation Foundation, who strongly support the passage of the bill, and their submission to the committee affirms that there is a clear alignment amongst diverse stakeholders about the need for high-quality rehabilitation works and a credible time line to facilitate this. Given this key legitimacy threshold and the need for more rehabilitation time and greater certainty, the Australian Conservation Foundation welcomes this legislation and supports its swift passage into law. The committee also found that ERA was committed to utilising local businesses and contractors as part of their rehabilitative work. This includes local Indigenous businesses. This forms part of ERA's plan to continue to engage with the local traditional owner groups and other representative bodies and organisations. ERA meets monthly with local traditional owner groups and the Northern Land Council to ensure continuity throughout the rehabilitation process. This is echoed by the submission from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources in conjunction with the National Indigenous Australians Agency which states: The rehabilitation of the RPA fits within a broader commitment by the Commonwealth in Jabiru and Kakadu to support empowerment of the local Mirarr traditional owners as they implement their vision to the transition of Jabiru from a mining town servicing Ranger to a world class— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Hoosan, Mr 104 19:30 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Early this morning I received some terribly tragic news, and I wish to share with the Senate my sincere condolences to the families of Mr Hoosan, the Chair of the Central Land Council, who passed away unexpectedly in Darwin overnight. He was a young man who only recently took on the leadership role of the Central Land Council, as chair, in April this year—a very much loved and respected person who made such a contribution in his short time at the land council but even before that, in his previous roles in life as a field officer, police officer, health worker and also in his work with the Uniting Church at Aputula/Finke in Central Australia. The news is absolutely devastating. My thoughts and prayers do go out to his families in Central Australia. In particular I mention his sister, Eileen, her daughter, Barb Shaw, and their families in Alice Springs, but also Stewart Hoosan, Nancy and Gadrian, their families in Borroloola, and many other families across the Northern Territory and into Queensland. I reach out especially to the staff of the Central Land Council but also to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, who he was with, in terms of a board meeting in Darwin. I know that there is profound sadness and shock amongst the Territory community. Mr Hoosan was associated with the CLC for many years before his election as chair this year. He was a member of the CLC executive committee, since 2019, and had been a delegate when he was younger. He was a youth worker and had been employed as a CLC field officer and, as I said, as a police officer and health worker. He was also a member of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council Watiku men's violence prevention group. He was incredibly passionate about making sure women and children were safe in their homes, in their communities, and at meetings wherever he was throughout his many years of dedication to his community and to the Northern Territory community. Only a few weeks Minister Linda Burney, the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and myself travelled to Watarrka in Central Australia to meet with the Central Land Council. Mr Hoosan was chairing, and over 90 delegates gathered there. It was an incredibly important occasion, as are most of the meetings of the Central Land Council. I guess I reflect poignantly on his leadership at that meeting and his warm welcome to all who entered to stand before the land council and be questioned. His compassion, generosity and warmth will always be remembered. I just say how deeply sorry I am to have heard this news. On behalf of our government and on behalf of the Australian parliament, I just want to acknowledge what a great contribution he has made to the people of the Northern Territory in such a short time. We're just so deeply saddened. Australian Signals Directorate 104 19:34 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise tonight to recognise the men and women who have for 75 years, quietly and without fanfare, served our nation. The Australian Signals Directorate this year celebrates its 75th anniversary of defending Australia from global threats and advancing our national interest through the provision of foreign signals intelligence. For 75 years the ASD has been tasked with collecting the national secrets of foreign adversaries while protecting our own. First emerging in the Second World War, this critical national task remains as important today. In 1947 the Defence Signals Bureau, as the ASD was originally called, was officially established in Melbourne under the leadership of British Commander JE 'Teddy' Poulden. But in the preceding years the spirit of ASD was already beginning to form when the Australian Navy, Army and Air Force personnel were brought together to support General Douglas McArthur's south-west Pacific campaign by intercepting and decoding Japanese radio signals. Until then Navy, Army and Air Force wireless units and intercept stations operated independently and without central coordination. From its early inception, Australia's signals intelligence was intimately intertwined with America and the United Kingdom in the war effort. It formed the basis of the Five Eyes network, which ensures the intimate sharing of the most sensitive intelligence continues today. Beyond the Second World War the ASD has been, as they say, hidden in plain sight, protecting Australia's national security and interests throughout the Cold War and during the war on terror. Over the years the ASD's capacity and capabilities have deepened and expanded, just as the threat environment has evolved and become more complex. While the ASD's primary role will always be to support the war fighter, the Australian Cyber Security Centre was established within the ASD by the previous government in 2014 to boost our nation's defences against cyberattacks. On this 75th anniversary it is timely for us to recognise the call of duty that once again is being required of Australia's best and brightest at the ASD. Director-General Rachel Noble has been honest with the Australian people about the threats we face. Australia's national economic and social wellbeing is increasingly the target of interference, espionage and attack by both foreign nation states and criminals. Our deteriorating strategic environment is seeing rapid military expansion, coercion, intrusion and cyberattacks on the march in the Indo-Pacific and around the world. We have seen in Ukraine the impacts that cyberoperations can have on conflict. Many military strategists believe the first shots in future wars will be fired in cyberspace, but they won't remain there. They will have real-world effects on critical infrastructure and services, which are increasingly being targeted by our potential adversaries. It is critically important that we can defend our country against those attacks and that our adversaries know that we can hit them back if they strike us first. That's why in government the coalition delivered the first significant investment in the Australian Signals Directorate in its 75-year history. Our $9.9 billion investment in REDSPICE will deliver cutting-edge capabilities in signals intelligence, cybersecurity and offensive cyber. It will allow the ASD to almost double in size by hiring 1,900 new personnel because, as Ms Noble has said, an organisation is only as good as its people. REDSPICE must be delivered in full. Anything less would expose Australia and its citizens to unacceptable threats both on- and offline. ASD's people are mission focused and patriotic Australians. As the head of the ACSC, Abigail Bradshaw, has said: 'There's nothing more important than contributing to your country's national security, economic prosperity and social unity than in this cybermission. I can't think of a better job.' I couldn't agree more. First Nations Australians 105 19:38 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria It's time for real ambition in this country. Through a treaty republic we have an opportunity to right the historical wrongs that shape our present. Before the British invasion over 500 sovereign nations governed these lands, each with their own laws, languages and customs. Colonists waged a war on First Nations people. They violently imposed their authority without negotiation or consent. We need to tell the truth about who we are and where we come from. Only then will we be able to heal and move forward as a united nation. Despite ongoing acts of genocide in this country, First Nations people have never ceded our sovereignty. Sovereignty is our assertion to be self-determining and to be self-governing. We maintain our sovereignty through the law of our land, through an unbroken connection to our country, our waters, our skies, our totems. Treaty is a negotiation about sharing sovereignty in this country. We've never had this conversation. Through a treaty process, we meet as equals to ensure genuine peace and justice. Treaty will not cede our sovereignty; it will strengthen it. Treaty is a formal agreement between First Nations people and the Commonwealth government. Treaty protects First Nations rights and sets the terms for sovereign bodies to negotiate with the government. That's why treaty is important. It's a blank canvas. We can write it together. We could have a treaty of the 21st century right here in this country. We're only one of a few Commonwealth countries left without a treaty with its first people. Only a treaty will allow for this country to be cared for as it should be, with thousands of years of knowledge and connection. Incarceration rates, deaths in custody and child removals are all symptoms of an ongoing war against First Nations people in this country. Treaty is an end to that war. We have an opportunity to do things differently in this country. We don't need a new king; we need a head of state chosen by the people. This parliament and our Prime Minister shouldn't be subordinate to someone on the other side of the world who we didn't even elect. A treaty republic will force us to tell the truth about our history and move us towards real action to right the wrongs that started with colonisation, creating a nation we can all be proud of that would bring us together and give everyone in this country something to celebrate. The rights and responsibilities I've spoken about have been spoken about time and time again in this chamber. They come from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which this parliament supported earlier this year. We could use this moment and momentum to empower our country to democratically elect our own leader, someone who represents all of us, and unite a country that has owned up to its past and chosen its own future. That unity would be more powerful than any king. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 106 19:42 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Youth Voice in Parliament Week champions the voices of young Australians by giving them a voice in parliament and online. I'd like to present a speech written by Andre Doban from South Australia as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week. It is called 'What do I want our new parliament to accomplish?' He says: 'I want the Australian parliament to strive to better serve its constituents, rather than forge its political gain. I want an Australian parliament that is productive and makes laws which make sense and actually help ordinary Australians, not just the wealthy or big corporations. I want an Australian parliament that, when all is said and done, in 20 years, will know that they did enough to take action to stop the climate crisis. I want an Australian parliament that embodies equality under the law in full and actively supports all measures to improve fairness and justice in our society. I want an Australian parliament whose members take responsibility for their actions and decisions. I hope for an Australian parliament that is a place of kindness towards each other and a parliament which does its hardest to find the common ground in disagreements, because there are many more things that unite us than divide us. I want an Australian parliament that truly represents Australia's interests and Australian people's voices. That is what our new parliament should accomplish: fairness, unity, action, responsibility, hard work and kindness.' Youth Voice in Parliament Week 106 19:45 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I too rise to read a submission to Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Youth Voice in Parliament Week is this week, 21 to 24 November, and it is an opportunity for young people to submit the words they wish could be read. So I am absolutely delighted to rise to read a speech from students of Cannonvale State School in the Whitsundays, North Queensland, and I chose this submission not only because these students are from my home region but also because I think they've captured the current mood of the entire nation: To whom it may concern, We are four Year 6 girls writing to you from Cannonvale State School, Qld. Our names are Charlie, Abby, Meg and Kiara and we are concerned about the price of living in Australia. More and more people are in poverty and are homeless due to this matter. Firstly, housing. Houses are much more expensive to rent or buy this year as they still remain 23.3% higher than the pre-pandemic stage in 2020. Secondly, petrol. Fuel prices have immensely risen over the past year. For what started not that long ago, it has surely made an impact on Australian lives. And thirdly, food prices. Food prices have risen 11.4% since August 2021 compared to August 2022. How can we solve this? Nobody really has an answer, however, a House of Representatives that holds 151 people can surely come up with an answer to this massive problem. Every kid this age dreams about moving out when they're older. So, let's make that dream possible so they can afford to. 'Every problem has a solution that's clear, simple and wrong'—HL Mencken I absolutely commend these girls for making their opinions known to us here who can do something about it. I also commend to them that they consider not just the 151 members of the House of Representatives but the 76 senators who work here in this red chamber. I'd also like to focus on the quote they used in the last sentence, because I think it applies to the federal government's approach to helping Australians with costs of living. This quote means that the easiest solution usually isn't the best, and unfortunately under Labor we are seeing this in spades, because Labor's simple but wrong solution to everything is to regulate and tax. Elementary-level economics dictates that in a country facing an energy shortage and skyrocketing power prices, bringing more supply onto the market would bring prices down, but instead Labor wants to regulate gas companies bringing gas to market. By encouraging more gas projects, there is enough gas for companies to export to high-demand markets and maintain profits for their shareholders, and enough to supply domestic users at a reasonable price. And let's not forget the influence of power prices on the cost of living. Before the election, the Prime Minister said 97 times that our power bills would come down by $275. Instead, we're now told to expect power bills to be about 50 per cent higher in the coming two years. Under this cavalier rush to make us pay for two power generation systems, families will be forced to classify electricity as a luxury they can sometimes afford, rather than treat it as a reliable necessity—having to choose between heating and eating. Household food budgets will also be under pressure, because Labor have signed Australia up to an international methane pledge that offers no details on how reductions will be achieved or how they will be measured. It will be especially tough if employers cut people's hours because the businesses can't afford the power bill because industry-wide strike action has slashed profit margins. So thank you again, Charlie, Abby, Meg and Kiara for your letter. I share your concern, and so do millions of people around Australia as they watch their bank balances dwindle. The cost of living is possibly the greatest challenge facing our nation, but there is hope. Thank you. Senat e adjourned at 19:50