DOCUMENTS

2022-11-29 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 29 November 2022

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put by on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 1

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 In Committee 1 12:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Now that we're in the committee stage, I want to indicate to the chamber that I have only a few questions that I just want to put to the minister and then, obviously, I'm more than happy to move onto the consideration of the amendments so that we can facilitate the bill through the parliament. Minister, in relation to section 73(3) of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, the Australian Human Rights Commission recommended that the factors in section 73(3) be made mandatory rather than optional. Why has the government not adopted that amendment? It is one of the amendments that the coalition is putting forward. I understand the government is not supporting that amendment. Given that, as I said, it is the Australian Human Rights Commission that have made this recommendation that the factors in section 73(3) be made mandatory and not optional, what is the rationale for the government not adopting this amendment? I understand the amendment we're putting forward will not have government support. 12:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As Senator Cash revealed, where the bill sets out a number of factors which the commissioner may consider when determining whether to hold a public hearing, the government does not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to require the commissioner to consider each of those factors listed in all cases. The commissioner will have the discretion to determine which factors are relevant to the question of whether it would be in the public interest to hold a public hearing and whether exceptional circumstances exist in the context of a specific investigation. Under the bill, the commissioner will be required to be a former state or Federal Court judge or an experienced legal practitioner. As such, they could be expected to bring extensive legal expertise in determining whether the requirements for a public hearing are met. There is limited value in mandating a consideration of a particular issue in circumstances where it would not be a relevant factor. 12:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that explanation. Given that it was a recommendation of the Australian Human Rights Commission, did the Attorney-General or the government have discussions with the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to why they made that recommendation and why the government—given it is the Australian Human Rights Commission—has decided not to? And what was the feedback given by the Australian Human Rights Commission? 12:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Those views that were expressed by the Human Rights Commission were expressed in the context of the Senate inquiry. My understanding is that the inquiry did not make a recommendation to back in the view of the Human Rights Commission, so, yes, the Attorney-General considered those views in the context of the broader inquiry. 12:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The opposition has also proposed an amendment that would require a commissioner and a deputy commissioner to act in concert to commence a public hearing. This was a recommendation of Dr James Renwick, the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Again, could we just work through the rationale behind why the government has not adopted what many would say is a very sensible recommendation? 12:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As Senator Cash has indicated, this is the subject of an amendment that the opposition will be moving. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that the government considers that the commissioner will be best placed to determine whether to conduct a public hearing, including whether it is in the public interest and whether exceptional circumstances justify doing so. The commissioner will be required to ensure that the benefits of holding hearings in public are balanced with other potential negative impacts. We should not operate on the presumption that the commissioner, who will have extensive legal expertise, will not apply this test in a rigorous, fair and dispassionate manner. 12:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia These are amendments that we are putting forward. I understand they don't have the government's support but it is just about getting the rationale behind why the certain decisions were made. The Law Council made a suggestion including an additional threshold that will allow the National Anti-Corruption Commission to conduct investigations into past conduct only where there is an identifiable public interest in doing so. Again, given that this is a recommendation from the Law Council of Australia and they have recommend the addition of a public interest test, can I just better understand the rationale again behind why the government hasn't taken on this recommendation? And very similar to my first question in relation to the Australian Human Rights Commission, in making this determination, what discussions were had with the Law Council in relation to why their suggestion was not being adopted and what feedback the Law Council gave to the government? 12:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The commissioner will be able to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct that occurred before the commission was established. It will be a matter for the commissioner to determine what matters involving past conduct to investigate. The government does not support limiting this discretion for the commissioner. It can be expected that the amount of time that has elapsed since the conduct is alleged to have occurred will be a factor considered by the commission in determining whether it is a priority for investigation. In some cases the passage of time will also affect the extent to which the commission is able to obtain information and evidence. These are entirely ordinary considerations for law enforcement and investigative agencies to take into account when deciding whether to open investigations into allegations relating to historic conduct. You will see a bit of a running theme between my responses to these questions, which is that we are trying to preserve the independence of the commission to make its own decisions about what to investigate—who, when—without tying it up with great limitations. 12:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You referred to one factor that the commission might take into consideration, and that was in relation to the effluxion of time. Just again, for the benefit of the Hansard record in particular, what are the other factors that will be considered by the commissioner in determining whether or not they should conduct an investigation into past conduct? 12:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I probably can't add a lot to what I've already said, but one of the things I also said which is related to time is, frankly, the strength of evidence. As Senator Cash would know being a former lawyer herself, there are usually evidentiary problems that arise the longer ago an incident occurred. So I would expect, obviously, the presence of evidence to support an allegation will be an important consideration, and that tends to decrease as time goes on. 12:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Another recommendation by the Law Council of Australia was that the administrative appeals (judicial review) act be applied to all aspects of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. As you would be aware, the bill currently has significant carveouts with part 6 on investigations and part 7 on hearings. They were excluded. Again, this was a recommendation from the Law Council: why doesn't the government want people brought before the National Anti-Corruption Commission? I know in the second reading speech that I presented to the Senate yesterday, it's not just obviously about a small group of people being parliamentarians; it does go to an estimated one million people who could possibly be brought within the remit of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. So it's the concern in relation to people being brought before the National Anti-Corruption Commission having that access to judicial review and I think in the examples that we gave yesterday—Comcar drivers, cleaners in Parliament House et cetera—to have access to judicial review as they would in relation to most other decisions of Commonwealth departments. 12:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think Senator Cash's question goes to an additional amendment that the opposition intends to move. The purpose of that amendment is to remove the provisions that would exempt certain decisions under the NACC Bill from review under the ADJR Act. The consequential bill that we're dealing with here provides that decisions relating to the commencement of an investigation or inquiry and intermediary or procedural steps by the commission on the way to reaching its findings would not be subject to review under the ADJR Act. This is appropriate to ensure that the commission's statutory functions are not undermined and delayed as a result of lengthy litigation at each interlocutory step of an investigation and that investigations and inquiries can be conducted in a timely manner. A person may still seek judicial review of these intermediary or procedural decisions under the Judiciary Act 1903 or in the High Court's original jurisdiction. That's why, when we get to it, the government will not be supporting this amendment. 12:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, again I have a number of questions coming out of the joint select committee which I served on. I appreciate you weren't there during the course of the hearing. The issue arose during the course of the hearing as to whether or not someone who's subject to a notice to produce or to testify at private hearings could tell their spouse, and we heard testimony during the course of the hearing about the psychological pressure that people are under in the context of a corruption inquiry. Why should someone not be permitted to tell their spouse, their closest psychological support, in circumstances where the spouse themselves is not the subject of a corruption investigation? Why is it that this bill doesn't provide that someone who's the subject of a corruption investigation can tell their spouse where their spouse is themselves not the subject of a corruption investigation? Doesn't that just reflect the reality of social relationships and the need for people to have the love and support of their closest person in this world? 12:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Scarr. I can assure Senator Scarr that the legislation as it's currently drafted does provide the commissioner with the discretion to allow people who are the subject of a notice to produce or a private hearing summons to disclose that to their family members, but on a case-by-case basis. So there's not an across-the-board permission for someone who is the subject of that sort of notice to inform their spouse. That's because in many cases it may be that family members may also be subjects of the same investigation or separate investigations. They may be the beneficiaries of allegedly corrupt conduct or they may be key witnesses in their own right. Nevertheless, the legislation does provide discretion to the commissioner to allow a disclosure to a family member on a case-by-case basis. 12:16 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland But, in a situation where the spouse themselves is not the subject of the corruption investigation, doesn't it simply reflect the reality that one would reasonably expect a person who is the subject of a corruption investigation to communicate with their spouse and to seek love and support from their spouse? That is something human experience tells us should not be subject to the discretion of a commissioner or anyone in a position of power. 12:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, I imagine that that is exactly the kind of situation where the commissioner may decide to allow someone to disclose this to a family member. But we think it's dangerous to allow that to happen in every single case without any reference to the commission itself, because there are cases where family members may also be the subject of the same investigation or separate investigations, and if we were to allow an across-the-board permission for people to disclose these types of matters to their spouse then that would potentially jeopardise investigations. But the case-by-case discretion for the commissioner exists under the legislation. 12:18 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, the Law Council of Australia raised concerns with respect to the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. I know, given your experience, you're well acquainted with the foundation stones of the privilege against self-incrimination and also privileges relating to legal professional privilege. Why shouldn't the commission exhaust all other coercive powers before abrogating the principle against self-incrimination? 12:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Scarr. Of course, the privilege against self-incrimination is an important principle in our justice system, and the bill does contain strong safeguards around the use of information that the commission obtains at hearings and in response to notices to produce. The bill does prohibit evidence obtained through the commission's coercive powers from being admitted in confiscation proceedings where those proceedings are already on foot or are imminent when the commission holds a hearing. We think that this strikes an appropriate balance to ensure that allegedly corrupt public officials can't retain the proceeds of their corruption, while ensuring the commission's powers cannot be used to advance proceedings that are imminent or already on foot. That point I'm making particularly relates to self-incrimination as it relates to confiscation proceedings. More generally, our position is that corrupt conduct poses a significant risk to the community and corrodes public trust in public institutions. Corruption investigations are inherently concerned with how and why public officials have made allegedly corrupt decisions, and therefore require that anticorruption commissions have powers to require persons to explain their conduct. For this reason, the bill abrogates the traditional privilege against self-incrimination. This approach is consistent with that of all state and territory anticorruption commissions, and it's appropriate as it will ensure the commission can conduct corruption investigations in a timely fashion and hear evidence on matters that would ordinarily be protected, to ensure that the commissioner is fully informed. Again, I know this relates to an amendment the opposition intends to move, which we will be opposing because we think that if the amendment were to pass it would significantly limit the commission's investigative powers. 12:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For the purposes of time, a number of the questions we have do relate directly to the amendments the opposition will be moving. We won't ask further questions directly now; we'll ask them in the amendment stage. If the Australian Greens wanted to move their first amendment, we'd be— The CHAIR: Senator Cash, I want to open up the call on those lines of questioning that the opposition have done. Does any honourable member wish to contribute to that line of questioning before we go to the amendment? Senator Shoebridge 169119 I have a separate line of questioning. The CHAIR: I'm open to any line of questioning. I'm holding off going to the amendments for the benefit of honourable members. 12:21 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the minister. Can you articulate what circumstances the government envisages would meet the exceptional circumstances test? Can you articulate one instance that would meet the exceptional circumstances test for the purposes of a public hearing? 12:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I know that this is a point you've raised throughout the consideration of this legislation, Senator Shoebridge. I've heard you raise it several times in the media, as well. As we have said on numerous occasions, we don't believe that it is useful to narrow the commission's discretion by explaining for the commission what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes. What this all gets back to is the ability under the legislation for the commission to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances. As I said earlier in response to a question—I think from Senator Cash—we have deliberately taken the position in constructing this legislation that the commission should have independence from the government to make its own decisions about what it investigates, who it investigates, the time frame of an investigation and whether it holds public hearings or not in exceptional circumstances. So I'm not going to give examples of what those exceptional circumstances might be, because I don't want to unreasonably constrain the independence of the commission. 12:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales That's interesting, but if you gave one non-exclusive example, far from limiting the commission's capacity, it would be a clear example that showed the government's intent. Is it really the case that you can't think of a single example where the government would be satisfied that the exceptional circumstances test is met? Is that really where we're at after a decade of debate and a Labor commitment before the election to have the test based on the public interest—and we're now here, in the last few hours of debate—that the government can't think of a single case that would see a public hearing being held? 12:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I suspect this is something we're going to have to agree to disagree on. It's not that the government can't think of examples of exceptional circumstances; it's that the government does not wish to constrain the commission by giving examples of exceptional circumstances. I can think of examples of what I'd think might be exceptional circumstances, and I'm sure that you can as well, Senator Shoebridge. But it's neither your job nor mine to decide for the commission what those exceptional circumstances are. It's the job of the commission, acting independently of government, without being constrained by examples or rules that a government puts down. We want this to be an independent body. We want it to make its own decisions about what it considers to be exceptional circumstances, which may very well be the same as I think, or it maybe something different. 12:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales If the government genuinely didn't want to constrain the NACC's ability to hold public hearings, then why did they move away from its election commitment to simply have a test based on the public interest, which works so well in jurisdictions like the New South Wales ICAC. Why did the government move away from that election commitment and insert the additional threshold of 'exceptional circumstances'? What was wrong with the public interest test that you took to the election? 12:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Shoebridge, while I didn't take part in the Senate inquiry, I have no doubt that this is something that you have asked repeatedly and had answered many times. I respect your right to keep asking the same questions, but you have heard these answers before. The government has come to a view that the commissioner is best placed to determine that public hearings should be able to be held in exceptional circumstances. The reason we have taken that path is that we think it is the commissioner's role to make that decision, rather than setting a different test—the test that you are advocating yourself. 12:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, why does your government think that politicians in this place, in the federal parliament, should have that shield and protection from public scrutiny based on an exceptional circumstances test, when we know that in New South Wales, as a key example, that shield isn't there and the public interest test has been so effective in holding politicians to account at a New South Wales level? What's special about federal politicians that they need this protection? 12:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I suspect this will be the first of many times that Senator Shoebridge seeks to mischaracterise the government's position. We've become pretty well acquainted with that style of debate from Senator Shoebridge in his short time here. But, as Senator Shoebridge knows, there are different approaches that are taken by different states as to how they handle public hearings. New South Wales takes a different approach to, for instance, what happens in South Australia, what happens in the Northern Territory, and possibly other jurisdictions. Where the government has landed—and let's not forget there were people in this place who didn't think there should be any public hearings whatsoever, and that is not the position of our government. We think there is a place for public hearings, for corruption investigations, but we think they should apply in what the commission considers to be exceptional circumstances. I look forward to Senator Shoebridge telling me something different to what I just said, in his next contribution. 12:28 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I have a question also relating to exceptional circumstances. I note the Labor Party's platform leading into the election. The National Anti-Corruption Commission fact sheet says, 'The commission will have the power to hold public hearings where the commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.' I've heard and take on board your feedback. My question is: given how much we've heard about election commitments, can you confirm that your government is open to changing its mind on an election commitment when presented with other information? 12:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Pocock. Can I thank you for your co-operation and negotiation throughout this debate. I know this is something that's been important to you as well. I don't think I'm going to fall into the trap, though, of answering hypotheticals about what we might do about election commitments. I'd probably want to know a little bit more detail about what you're talking about before I answer that kind of question. But, in the process of drafting this legislation, we think that we've the balance right in limiting the commission's ability to hold public hearings to what it considers to be exceptional circumstances. 12:29 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for that. I appreciate your engagement on this issue. I just want to confirm that you accept the view that, if this is legislated in its current form, it will differ from what the now government went to the election promising the Australian people. 12:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think I'm going to get into how every word of what we've ended up presenting is identical or slightly different to an election commitment. I think it was very clear, heading into the election, that, if the Australian people voted for an Albanese Labor government, they would get a national anticorruption commission, something that the former government resisted every step of the way. I'm very proud that it is going to be an Albanese Labor government that delivers, for the very first time, a national anticorruption commission. 12:30 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, do you accept the basic premise of what Senator Pocock has put to you, which is that you went to an election promising public hearings based upon a public interest test, and you've now junked that commitment, and you've put in this additional—much, much harsher—test of 'exceptional circumstances', which is contrary to what you took to the election? 12:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What I would accept is that it will be an Albanese Labor government that delivers a national anticorruption commission. That was our promise. That's what we're delivering. I think it's fabulous, and it's a great day for Australian democracy if we can get this passed and established. The final form of this bill, whether it be in relation to this matter or any other, is the result of extensive consultation that the government has undertaken since winning the election. 12:31 Sena 169119 New South Wales tor SHOEBRIDGE () (): I move amendment (1) on sheet 1730: (1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), at the end of clause, add: ; (e) to establish an independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. This amendment, if accepted, would fill a gap in the bill. The bill as proposed, in its principles and objects, does not contain one key statement of principle, which is that we are establishing an independent national anticorruption commission. We heard in the committee, from witnesses very familiar with the New South Wales commission, that that clear statement of intent in the objects of the bill, stating unambiguously that we are establishing an independent national anticorruption commission, will be important, because, if there is any ambiguity about how the act should operate, and it faces legal challenge, one of the first things a court will do is go back to the objects and say, 'What was parliament trying to establish here?' Surely we can unite on this and say that one of the key objects of this bill is to establish an independent national anticorruption commission. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the house. 12:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Shoebridge for his amendment. The government, of course, supports the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I've made that point several times myself this morning, and I know other members of our government—in particular, the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus—have made the same point repeatedly over the last few months. One of the seven design principles for the commission that the government took to the election was that the commission would operate independent from government. The independence of the commission will be critical to its credibility and effectiveness. The bill contains a number of provisions to ensure the commission's independence, including that the commissioner will be able to receive complaints or referrals from any source, including the public; the commissioner will be able to commence corruption investigations and public inquiries on their own motion; the appointments of the commissioner and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by a multipartisan parliamentary joint committee; and the commissioner will be appointed for a single fixed term and will have security of tenure comparable to that of a federal judge, ensuring the officers of the commission can undertake corruption investigations without fear of removal from office due to any findings they might make. The government does not, however, support amending the objects clause to include a reference to the commission's independence. The objects clause in the bill is intended to set out the ultimate purpose of the legislation which, in the case of the NACC Bill—as this bill has become known—is to enable or facilitate the prevention, detection, timely investigation and referral for prosecution of corrupt conduct and to educate and provide information about corruption. The commission will be the means through which these objects are achieved, and its independence will assist in achieving these objects. However, neither the commission nor its independent status are ends or objects in their own right. For that reason, the government does not support this amendment. 12:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will make some very brief comments on behalf of the opposition. The opposition also won't be supporting the amendment. We consider that the amendment is unnecessary. I understand it was not recommended by the committee that looked into the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and it does not reflect common drafting practice across the Commonwealth statute book. 12:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I would like to thank the minister and Senator Cash for their contributions. Of course, the bill is the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. Its purpose is to establish a commission. It's hopeful that that commission will fight corruption and put in place education measures and—hopefully, if they can ever overcome the test of exceptional circumstances—expose any existing corruption to the full glare of public review to provide that ultimate discouragement from corruption. So, given that the bill is to create a national anticorruption commission—in fact the bill is a national anticorruption commission bill and not a national anticorruption measure—I cannot understand, Minister, why you can't see that one of the core objects should be to establish an independent national anticorruption commission? I can tell you now that the people of Australia want to see this. They don't just want some amorphous anticorruption measure. They want us to establish—unambiguously, in black and white—an independent national anticorruption commission Why won't you accept that as one of the key objects? 12:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. I can't really add much more to that, other than to remind Senator Shoebridge of the number of provisions in the bill which very strongly preserve the commission's independence. The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge on sheet 1730 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:41]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

14 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (30) and (32) and (33) on sheet 1762 together. (1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", or that could adversely affect,". (2) Clause 7, page 10 (lines 24 to 27), omit the definition of official of a registered industrial organisation. (3) Clause 8, page 15 (line 6), omit "or that could adversely affect,". (4) Clause 9, page 17 (line 25), omit "conduct; or", substitute "conduct.". (5) Clause 9, page 17 (line 26), omit paragraph (1)(c). (6) Clause 12, page 25 (table item 2, column headed "Individual"), omit "(other than an official of a registered industrial organisation)". (7) Clause 14, page 28 (lines 2 and 3), omit "(other than an official of a registered industrial organisation)". (8) Page 47 (after line 10), at the end of Division 3, add: 39A Offence — vexatious referrals A person commits an offence if: (a) the person refers a corruption issue to the Commissioner; and (b) the Commissioner does not reasonably suspect that the conduct to which the issue relates has been, or is being, engaged in; and (c) there is no basis on which a reasonable person could suspect that the conduct to which the issue relates has been, or is being, engaged in; and (d) the referral is made with the intention of causing a detriment to another person. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. 39B Offence — disclosure of referrals A person commits an offence if: (a) a corruption issue is referred to the Commissioner; and (b) the person discloses to the public that the corruption issue has been referred to the Commissioner; and (c) the disclosure is not authorised by or under this Act. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. (9) Clause 40, page 48 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) However, if the corruption issue could, in the Commissioner's opinion, involve corrupt conduct that occurred before the commencement of section 8, the Commissioner may deal with the corruption issue only if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. (10) Clause 45, page 52 (line 20), omit "is satisfied", substitute "and a Deputy Commissioner are satisfied". (11) Clause 45, page 52 (line 21), after "Commissioner", insert "and a Deputy Commissioner". (12) Clause 45, page 52 (line 27), omit "and the Commissioner considers", substitute "and the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner consider". (13) Clause 45, page 53 (line 9), after "Commissioner", insert "and a Deputy Commissioner". (14) Clause 73, page 70 (line 18), omit all the words from and including "decides" to the end of subclause (1), substitute "and a Deputy Commissioner decide that the hearing, or part of the hearing, is to be held in public". (15) Clause 73, page 70 (lines 20 and 21), omit all the words from and including "may decide" to and including "Commissioner is", substitute "and a Deputy Commissioner may decide that a hearing, or part of a hearing, is to be held in public if the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are". (16) Clause 73, page 70 (lines 25 and 26), omit all the words from and including "to hold" to and including "the Commissioner", substitute "a hearing, or part of a hearing, is to be held in public, the Commissioner and a Deputy Commissioner". (17) Clause 73, page 70 (line 26), omit "may", substitute "must". (18) Clause 73, page 71 (line 14), after "Commissioner", insert "and a Deputy Commissioner". (19) Clause 81, page 75 (line 7), before "A person", insert "(1)". (20) Clause 81, page 75 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) does not apply if the person was not given a reasonable opportunity to answer the question. (21) Clause 82, page 76 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraph (b). (22) Clause 95, page 85 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The notation: (a) must permit disclosure of information to: (i) the spouse of the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons (unless the spouse is a subject of the corruption investigation in relation to which the notice or summons is given); and (ii) any mental health professional who is providing mental health care to the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons; and (b) may permit disclosure of information in other specified circumstances. (23) Clause 98, page 88 (line 11 to 17), omit paragraph (3)(e), substitute: (e) by a legal practitioner for the purpose of giving legal advice to, or making representations on behalf of, the person on whom the notice or summons was served; or (24) Clause 113, page 102 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) If: (a) a person is required, by a notice to produce or at a hearing, to give an answer or information, or to produce a document or thing; and (b) all other coercive powers available to the Commissioner to obtain the information, document or thing have been exhausted; the person is not excused from giving the answer or information, or producing the document or thing, on the ground that doing so would tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty. (25) Clause 113, page 102 (lines 7 to 11), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) However: (a) the answer or information given, or the document or thing produced; and (b) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct consequence of the giving of the answer or information or the production of the document or thing; is not admissible in evidence against the person in: (c) a criminal proceeding; or (d) a proceeding for the imposition or recovery of a penalty; or (e) a confiscation proceeding. (26) Clause 113, page 102 (lines 17 to 20), omit subparagraph (3)(b)(i). (27) Clause 113, page 103 (lines 1 and 2), omit the note. (28) Page 103 (after line 5), after clause 113, insert: 113A Leg al professional privilege This Act does not affect the law relating to legal professional privilege. (29) Clause 114, page 103 (lines 11 to 13), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). (30) Clause 114, page 103 (line 17) to page 104 (line 2), omit subclauses (2) to (5). (31) Clause 115, page 104 (lines 12 to 28), to be opposed. (32) Clause 154, page 131 (after line 32), at the end of the clause, add: (7) The Commissioner must give an investigation report, or a protected investigation report, to a person in accordance with this section no later than 12 months (or such longer period as a court allows) after the earlier of the following: (a) the time when the corruption issue to which the report relates was referred to the Commissioner; (b) the time when the Commissioner became aware of the corruption issue to which the report relates. (33) Clause 178, page 150 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or the Inspector, the decision to approve the recommendation must be supported by at least a three-quarters majority of all of the members of the Committee. (2B) Paragraph 173(5)(b) does not apply in relation to a vote on a decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation. I did refer to these amendments in my second reading speech. I have questioned the minister this morning in relation to the rationale behind the government not supporting them. 12:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales To be clear, the opposition have now obtained leave to amend clauses 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 45, 73, 81, 82, 95, 98 and 113 to 115, 154 and 178 together. Are you moving them all? 12:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes. 12:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I won't respond to every one of those amendments but what I will say is the Greens' approach to this package of opposition amendments is that we don't support them because, by and large, they put in place a whole lot of trip wires for the commission's jurisdiction, which would allow empowered and wealthy individuals, and empowered and wealthy corporations, to bring a series of unmeritorious legal challenges which would ultimately delay the NACC's work by sometimes months or, as we've seen in Victoria, sometimes years through legal challenge after legal challenge. We want ensure that the National Anti-Corruption Commission can get on and do its job and, if they were accepted, these amendments would prejudice the capacity of the NACC to do its work. We note as well that there are some other amendments here seeking to overtly rope in registered industrial officials by definition. We're firmly of the view that if any member of a union is exercising any federal power and acts in a potentially corrupt way then that conduct would already be the subject of review by the NACC. We don't see any merit in the proposed amendments being put forward. When I say that, I know the unions collectively are also perfectly comfortable with that position. This bill will provide the appropriate level of accountability, and we won't be supporting these kinds of amendments that, I think, would by and large tie the commission down in endless legal challenges and prevent it from reviewing, amongst other things, what's happened in the last nine years in this place. 12:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will also be opposing each of the opposition amendments. We've traversed why in the earlier discussions, so I won't go over it in great detail. I want to reinforce the point that one amendment that the opposition is moving, in our view, seeks to limit the past conduct that the anticorruption commissioner could investigate. The ability to investigate past conduct was an important difference between the model the government is putting forward and what the opposition put forward when they were in government. We don't think that we should be limiting the commission's powers to investigate past conduct. We think we should leave it to the commission to determine that rather than putting restrictions around that. We will be opposing these amendments for reasons I have gone into previously and for reasons the Attorney-General detailed in the House. The CHAIR: I put the question, as moved by Senator Cash, that amendments (1) to (30), (32) and (33) be agreed to. The CHAIR (12:57): I now put the question that clause 115 stand as printed. Question agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:53]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:58 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales At this stage, I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 1730: (2) Clause 8, page 15 (line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (e) any conduct of a public official in that capacity that constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of corruption of any other kind. I'll speak to Greens amendments (1) and (3) at the same time, because that might be convenient. Amendment (2) seeks to re-insert a provision that was stripped out by the other place in relation to the definition of 'corruption' found in section 8 of the bill. There was some discussion about this during the committee hearing in relation to the bill, and there were a minority of participants in that committee inquiry—the Queensland Bar Association and the South Australian Bar Association—who were anxious about what was then section 8(1)(e) of the bill. It had an extended definition of corruption for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the NACC, which included any conduct of a public official in that capacity which constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of corruption of any other kind. The concern that was raised by a minority of participants in the inquiry was that that was somehow too broad. The Greens simply don't accept that, and I know that a number of other crossbench members, in the other place in particular, oppose the stripping out of that. That's for the very good reason that the argument that it's too broad fails to engage with how this provision fits within the bill. First of all, for this provision to be engaged, the NACC have to be satisfied that what they're looking at is corruption. Corruption has a well-understood definition and meaning and, as we've seen just from the last week in federal politics, politicians can keep coming up with new and novel ways to betray the public trust. We saw that in the report that was released on Friday by the honourable former Justice Bell in relation to the former Prime Minister, where we saw an example of what I would say is corrupt conduct that no-one would have thought possible 12 months ago. The now former Prime Minister sought to have multiple ministerial appointments and kept that secret from the public, the parliament and even his own colleagues: who would have thought that kind of corruption could have been cooked up 12 months ago? We've also seen in the last week the conduct of another member of the other place exposed as being, basically, an agent for sale—seeking to lobby in his role as a backbencher for whoever was willing to put cash in his tin. He has been exposed for doing that. Maybe that kind of appalling behaviour is more predictable. But we can see, just from the last week, how politicians keep coming up with new and novel ways to corrupt this parliament and to engage in corrupt conduct. So of course we need a broad definition going forward, because heaven knows what they'll come up with next to try to corrupt the public interest. Further: for this clause to be engaged the NACC also has to be satisfied that it's not just corruption but serious or repeated corruption. So the question we ask of both the government and the opposition is: what kind of serious or repeated corruption do you not want the NACC to look at? That's the ultimate test here. If they oppose reinserting this subsection 8(1)(e) then they're saying that there's some serious or repeated corruption that they don't want the National Anti-Corruption Commission to have jurisdiction in relation to. If that's so, tell us what it is. Tell us what that corruption is, because we don't think we should be shutting the gates and closing the categories of corruption. That's because we know how in the past politicians have kept coming up with new and novel ways to corrupt parliament, to corrupt government and to betray the public interest. 13:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, I think we're all becoming accustomed to Senator Shoebridge's style of argument, which is to say that if you don't agree with what he's saying then you're in some way a terrible person. We've heard that loud and clear. But we're confident that the legislation we have put forward to the parliament strikes the right balance and, for the very first time, sees an Australian government taking issues of corruption seriously at the federal level. Senator Shoebridge's first amendment, item (2), seeks to reinsert a paragraph in the bill as to the definition of corrupt conduct: I'm sure Senator Shoebridge is aware that what we've done in omitting that paragraph is to accept the recommendation of the joint select committee that looked at this bill. That was a joint select committee that included representatives of the Australian Greens. That committee recommended this clause be omitted from the bill, that committee included members of the Greens, and that's what we're doing. I might also point out that Senator Shoebridge has tried to characterise the people who support the government's position as being some kind of a minority. That's a minority that includes the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission, who also agree with the government, and, for that matter, the joint select committee, that this clause should be omitted from the bill. Paragraphs 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(d) of the bill, which are retained here, would provide the commission with broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct consistent with most state and territory models. The government is confident that the amended definition of 'corrupt conduct' will enable the commission to effectively investigate any form of serious or systemic corrupt conduct that is referred to it or that it may identify itself. For that reason, we won't be supporting that amendment. In relation to the second amendment, item (3): as the Attorney-General has noted, there's a point at which the making of discretionary grants can cross the line into corruption—referred to as pork barrelling—where public money is being given away for private purposes. The bill would enable the commission to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct in relation to a discretionary grants program where that conduct may involve a breach of public trust or dishonest or partial conduct. These are well-established concepts which are being considered by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption in its Operation Jersey. If there are circumstances where grants are allocated dishonestly or for an improper purpose, the commission has the power to decide to investigate if it is of the opinion that this could involve serious or systemic corruption. There is a range of other activity going on within the Albanese government in this space, including the Minister for Finance considering opportunities to strengthen the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines. For these reasons, the government does not support this amendment. 13:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I note that the Australian Greens have moved amendment (2) as opposed to amendments (2) and (3), but I will put on the record the coalition's comments in relation to both amendments (2) and (3). As we have throughout the entire process—I know I have Senator Paul Scarr in the chamber with me—we approach this legislation in the spirit of bipartisanship. In particular, as the minister has outlined and as Senator Scarr knows, we accept the recommendations of the joint select committee. They were consensus recommendations. The committee investigated these matters in detail. They worked through these matters, listened to the evidence and, as I've said, made consensus recommendations, which we support. Amendment (2) contradicts the consensus recommendations of the joint select committee. Even the Law Council, the Queensland Law Society and the Australian Human Rights Commission all expressed the view that the provision was both circular and unclear. To that extent, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, for public officials to know what conduct is actually captured within the provision. There is no clear or compelling case, in particular given the recommendations coming out of the joint select committee, for including this provision. I note that even the Attorney-General's Department, responsible for the drafting of the bill and the preparation of the explanatory materials, were themselves unable to identify a single example of conduct which would be captured by the clause. In relation to amendment (3), we would say it is a legislative note but the amendment is actually unnecessary. Again, we have approached this bill in the spirit of bipartisanship; I thank Senator Paul Scarr for the work he undertook on behalf of the coalition. When you look at the joint select committee, it considered the definition of 'corrupt conduct' in detail. Again, when you look at the recommendations of the joint select committee, this is not a provision that was recommended. In addition to not being recommended by the committee, when you look at the drafting we have it is problematic in that it leaves the scope of the commission's jurisdiction unclear. We would say the better approach is to make clear that the commission's role is to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct, as the legislation currently does. I reiterate that, as we have throughout, we approach this legislation in the spirit of bipartisanship, and we will support the consensus recommendations of the committee in that regard. The opposition will not be lending its support to either of these amendments. 13:09 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): It might be convenient if I briefly speak now to amendment (3) on that sheet as well. First of all, in relation to both amendments (2) and (3) I note that the minister and Senator Cash have referred to the committee's review of this. Of course, these recommendations were not by consensus. In relation to the absence of an express definition of pork-barrelling, both the member for Indi, Dr Haines, and myself, on behalf of the Greens, indicated, and said unambiguously, that given the level of public concern regarding the alleged misuse of billions of dollars of public grants funds there is real merit in expressly addressing this in the definition of corruption. I don't know how clear you can be, but the failure to include an express roping in of pork-barrelling was not by consensus. We've seen, in this parliament, billions of dollars of public money being rorted by way of pork-barrelling. I know from my experience in the New South Wales parliament that billions of dollars were rorted there too by way of pork-barrelling. There is real public revulsion about it. We want to be unambiguously clear that the NACC has the jurisdiction to look at pork-barrelling. In that regard, our amendment (3) is simply to put in a notation to the definition of corruption that provides, by way of guidance, that corrupt conduct may include conduct that constitutes pork-barrelling or political donations for the purpose of influencing a decision or policy made by a public official. Of course that should be in and of course the NACC should be able to look at that. I can't understand the resistance of both major parties from expressly including a reference to the corrupting power of both pork-barrelling and political donations. Of course, that would be consistent with the position that was adopted by the crossbench members in the parliamentary oversight. When it comes to the removal of clause 8(1)(e), again, it's wrong to state that that was by consensus. On behalf of the Greens, I made it abundantly clear, including in the report, that the definition of corrupt conduct in 8(1)(e) should be retained. And I made the arguments, that you can hear today, that it is not an open-ended definition. It has to be serious or systemic and it has to be corruption. What I fail to hear from either the government or the opposition is—the obvious question that's asked when you oppose this definition—what kind of serious or systemic corruption do you think the NACC should be able to investigate? What's the serious or systemic corruption that you think should not be able to darken the door of the National Anti-Corruption Commission? I commend both amendments (2) and (3) to the Senate for those reasons. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 287062 Senator Shoebridge, can I ask you to move (3)? Are you happy for me to put the question for both of them at the same time? Otherwise I'll split them. 13:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move amendment (3): (3) Clause 8, page 15 (after line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: Corrupt conduct may include conduct that constitutes pork barrelling or political donations for the purpose of influencing a decision or policy made by a public official. The CH AIR: The question before the chair is that amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 1730 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. The CHAIR (13:19): We now come to sheet 1769, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock.

The committee divided. [13:17]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) 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.

13:20 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1769, circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 8, page 15 (line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (e) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes. (2) Clause 8, page 15 (after line 20), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters: (a) collusive tendering; (b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources; (c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage; (d) defrauding the public revenue; (e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official. (3) Clause 8, page 15 (line 21), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not". (4) Clause 8, page 16 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)". These amendments were moved by the member for Indi, Helen Haines, in the lower house. Again, I would like to thank her for her work on this issue over many years. These amendments make clear that pork-barrelling is corruption. We've seen concerns in communities across the country with the way that public funds have been allocated for political gain. This makes it clear that that can be investigated. I'm also concerned that this bill falls short when it comes to conduct by third parties that could impair public confidence in public administration—in particular, practices of collusive tendering, dishonestly obtaining benefit from public funding decisions and defrauding public revenue. This makes it clear that those are included. It's clear that to restore public trust we need the very best model of a national anticorruption commission we can possibly have. We should be aiming for world-leading; that's what the Australian people have called for and expect. I believe these amendments go some way to ensuring that we make explicit what we are hearing is implied by this legislation. 13:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Pocock, for your amendments. The commission will be a specialist body focused on preventing, detecting and investigating corruption involving public officials. The commissioner will be able to fully investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct and transactions between public officials and third parties as well as attempts by third parties to corrupt public officials. This includes the conduct referred to in Senator Pocock's proposed amendment, where there is some involvement of a public official. Extending the commission's jurisdiction beyond matters involving corruption of a public official to include external frauds against the Commonwealth that do not involve a public official would divert the commission from its core purpose. For that reason the government does not support items (2), (3) and (4) on Sheet 1769. In relation to the yet-unmoved amendment items (5) and (6) on sheet 1769—and again I thank Senator Pocock for these amendments: the government has committed substantial funding of $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. The parliamentary joint committee on the commission will have the function of reviewing the commission's budget and finances, of reporting to the parliament on whether the commission's resources are sufficient to effectively perform its functions and whether its budget should be increased. The committee would be able to review the commission's budget at any time. We think, therefore, that the commission's budget and the certainty around its budget is sufficiently preserved, and we do not consider that further amendments would meaningfully enhance the commission's role. For that reason we don't support these amendments either. 13:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I note that Senator Pocock has moved amendments (1) to (4) on Sheet 1769. There are also amendments (5) and (6) on Sheet 1769, which he has not moved, but I will speak to both. The opposition will not be supporting the amendments put forward by Senator Pocock. As I've already referred to in relation to the previous amendments that were before the Senate, these amendments, in part, would expand the definition of corruption. They would require that the committee review the National Anti-Corruption Commission budget annually, and require the minister to provide a statement of reasons in the event that they did not act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee on the finance and resources. In terms of the latter part, the coalition believes budgetary decisions in relation to any government agency should be left to the government of the day. In terms of the other amendments, we believe that the government has got the balance right in relation to the definition of corruption. I'd also refer to the comments I made in relation to addressing amendments put forward by the Australian Greens, particularly following the government amendment in the House following, again, the consensus recommendation of the joint select committee. As such, the coalition will not be supporting these amendments. 13:24 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, could you clarify and confirm that the NACC will be able to investigate corruption when a public official is involved but is not actually aware that they're involved in corruption? For example, if there's collusion to withhold information from a public official that leads to a certain decision, so the public official is involved but doesn't necessarily know that they're involved. Can that still be investigated as part of the NACC? 13:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The short answer is no. If a public official is unaware that they have been involved in some corrupt activity, they would not be subject to investigation. 13:25 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Deputy President, I can indicate the Greens will be supporting amendments (1) to (4) as moved by Senator Pocock—I don't think amendments (5) and (6) have been moved yet, and I'll speak to them. One of the reasons is for the answer just given by the minister. We can think of many instances where there may be an attempt to mislead or provide false information to a public official which may have a deeply corrupting impact and where, in the opinion of the NACC, it may be appropriate to undertake an investigation to determine whether or not substantial amounts of public finances or some public policy has been corrupted and misapplied for that reason. Then the NACC can investigate it, expose it and come up with some corruption-fighting mechanisms and recommendations to prevent it happening again. We have faith in the commonsense of the commissioner—whoever will be chosen—to exercise this jurisdiction wisely. If it may be more appropriate in some instances for the Australian Federal Police or some external agency to undertake the investigation, then we have faith that the NACC would allow that to happen. But we see the opposition to this amendment coming from the government as troubling, because we know it happens and we know that we need systemic fixes and the best way of exposing and fixing it is through an empowered NACC. The CHAIR: As there are no more contributions, Senator Pocock, I have the option to ask you to move amendments (5) and (6) on 1769, or we can leave that to later. The matter is entirely in your hands. This is in relation to budget. 13:27 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'm happy to do that, Chair. By leave—I move: (5) Clause 177, page 148 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,". (6) Clause 177, page 148 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If: (a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and (b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation; then: (c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and (d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision. One of the common issues that emerged during the committee inquiry into this bill was that integrity bodies and other Australian jurisdictions are often not provided the resources that they need. I commend the government for allocating $260-odd million to the NACC in the most recent budget, but, once the NACC is up and running and will be potentially politically inconvenient to people in this place, there is always the risk that the government of the day will seek to reduce funding and to reduce the effectiveness of the NACC. Transparency is key here. This amendment will require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the NACC joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. This does not bind the government to giving them that money; it simply provides an extra piece of transparency so that Australians know if we are short-changing the body that is going to be tasked with holding people in these places, public servants and others, who are using valuable Australian resources that should be spent in the best interests of Australians, to account. I really believe that for the NACC to be independent and powerful it has to have the funding it needs, and I would really like more transparency around that process. The CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, you have a few seconds remaining before we hit the hard marker. In fact, we've hit the hard marker of 1.30 pm, so I have to report progress. My apologies, we will wait in anticipation for your contribution. Progress reported. BUSINESS 16 BUSINESS Rearrangement 16 13:30 Se ING Australian Capital Territory nator GALLAGHER (—) (): by leave—I move: That— Tuesday, 29 November 2022 (1) The routine of business from 6.30 pm to not later than 9.30 pm today be government business only for the consideration of the following bills: National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 (second reading speeches only). (2) Divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the National Anti- Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and a related bill only. (3) The routine of business then be: (a) adjournment proposed; and (b) after not more than 1 hour (5 minute speeches only), adjournment. Wednesday, 30 November 2022 (4) The hours of meeting on Wednesday, 30 November 2022 be 9 am till 11 pm. (5) Proposals under standing order 75 not be proceeded with. (6) If the question on the second reading of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 has not been determined by 6.30 pm, the question be put. (7) The routine of business from 6.30 pm be consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. (8) Divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bill only. (9) The Senate adjourn without debate at 11 pm, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier. Thursday, 1 December 2022 (10) The hours of meeting on Thursday, 1 December 2022 be 9 am till adjournment. (11) The routine of business be: (a) consideration of private senators' bills under standing order (57)(1)(d)(i); (b) government business only; (c) at 2 pm, questions; (d) motions to take note of answers; (e) notices of motion; (f) a report of the Selection of Bills committee; (g) government business only; and (h) at 5.30 pm, consideration of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. (12) After consideration of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 has concluded, bills be called on in the following order and considered until determined: Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022 Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. (13) Divisions may take place after 4.30 pm. (14) The Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister. Senator Cash I0M Is this the motion we've been provided with? Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, and that people have agreed with. I thank the Senate for its cooperation. 13:31 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The Greens will be supporting this; we want to facilitate the NACC, the IR and the territory rights bills to be passed this week. That is our preference. We know we're still negotiating over some amendments, but we want these pieces of legislation passed this year. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 17 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Western Australia: Workplace Relations 17 13:31 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Western Australians are wondering why it is that this new Labor government has deserted them. Why is it that this new Labor government has deserted them? During the course of this week, we will be debating a number of bills. One critical bill will be about reforms to workplace relations which will cost jobs, undermine Western Australian businesses and make it harder for the Western Australian resources sector. People in Western Australia are wondering what they've done to deserve this from the new Labor government. As we've heard from coalition senators over the last few weeks, this is legislation that is radical, this is legislation that is rushed and this is legislation that will cost jobs and undermine business confidence in my home state of Western Australia. And you don't have to believe me or my warnings, or the warnings of coalition senators, about this rushed and radical industrial relations bill. You only need to think about the comments that the Reserve Bank governor himself made just last week, drawing a very, very important contrast between the need for flexibility in our workplace relations as opposed to rigidity—the rigidity that the industrial relations reforms being prosecuted by Labor will bring to the workplace relations system in my home state of Western Australia. The Governor of the Reserve Bank said: … we will be better off if there is flexibility in our labour and product markets so that we can respond quickly and effectively. Those aren't my words, but the words of the Reserve Bank governor. He is saying that Australia's prosperity is built on the back of a flexible workplace relations systems and not the rigid system that this radical and rushed legislation will do. And don't just believe me. Here we are with the Australian Financial Review saying, 'The Albanese— (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef 17 13:33 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania They're resorting to props now, Mr Deputy President! Exactly three years ago this week I stood in this Senate and gave an emotional and angry speech about the sad and devastating decline of the Great Barrier Reef. Senators laughed at me when I reflected on my concerns about the grave danger facing the future of the world's greatest natural wonder. Three years later, we get another report from the UNESCO International Scientific Committee recommending that the World Heritage Committee list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered because its outstanding universal values are threatened by climate change—warming oceans caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This morning the environment minister gave a press conference and said, 'We need to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees.' Mr Bowen, at COP two weeks ago, said, 'What are we doing here, if it's not to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees.' Yet this government has legislated a two-degree global warming emissions reduction target—two degrees. The science tells us that that is the death of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it. So what is it going to be, Mr Anthony Albanese? On one hand, you can have 1.5 degrees and do everything you can to keep warming at that level and give the reef a fighting chance. On the other hand, we have the death of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it. I think Australians can see the duplicity. They can see the cognitive dissonance coming from the Labor Party, and they expect more. So this is an opportunity for the Labor government to now explain what they're going to do to act on climate change, to act on the UNESCO recommendations and to save the barrier reef. (Time expired) Chidlow Progress Association 17 13:36 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise today to congratulate the Chidlow Progress Association on their 125th anniversary. Chidlow is a small, beautiful Perth hills community with a population of less than 2,000, in the federal electorate of Hasluck, which is about 45 kilometres east of Perth. The Chidlow Hall was opened on Australia Day in 1905, and I commend all of the locals who banded together to save this historic hall from demolition. For any local community, particularly in Western Australia, to reach such a milestone is impressive, but the voluntary nature of the Chidlow Progress Association makes their 125th anniversary even more noteworthy. The Chidlow Hall has a really important local history. It was used for elections, church services and choir practice, and it was also where Chidlow's young men took their medicals before departing for World War II. Now the hall is restored, the community is once again running community events such as the Chidlow market day and their local film club. One of the association's latest projects is the Chidlow community garden, which builds on the vision for a shared community open space. Without the Chidlow Progress Association, the community would not be what it is today. Congratulations to everyone involved in your 125th anniversary. I'm proud to have been part of a government that committed $11,000 to fund the maintenance and the upgrades of the hall. As I said, congratulations to all involved. Together, you have ensured that Chidlow remains a great place to live, work and raise a family. Congratulations. FIFA World Cup 18 13:37 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland What a day for historic wins it was on Saturday! Not only did the Andrews Labor government secure a third term in Victoria but of course our Socceroos made World Cup history. For the first time in 12 years, the Socceroos won a game at the FIFA World Cup. It's been 12 long years between victories, and it was incredible to watch. It was our first clean sheet at a World Cup since 1974. It was an exciting game, as the scenes that we saw in Fed Square attested to, with supporters putting on an amazing display of joy and national pride. It was a game that allowed some of our very best talent from all across the country to shine, but I want to make special mention of Maty Ryan, our captain, and Milos Degenek, Danny Vukovic and Aaron Mooy—fellow Westfield Sports High alumni. I ended up in the Senate. They ended up at the World Cup. I think they got the better deal! I also want to acknowledge big Harry's 86th-minute save against Tunisia. He cemented his place as a legend in our game with that split-second decision. This was in only his third senior match since he ruptured his ACL late last year. It was good to see him back on the field. Congratulations, of course, to Mitchell Duke for scoring the winning goal that put Australia in the box seat for our game against Denmark this week. To the Socceroos: you united a nation across the other side of the world. As for what is next, I know that I will be up at 2 am this Thursday to watch our Socceroos play Denmark. If my colleagues could take that into account while we are sitting, I would appreciate it greatly! Thank you so much to Football Australia and to the PFA, and to the Socceroos for inspiring us not only by what you did on the pitch the other night but through everything that you do off the pitch as well. We are 100 per cent with you. Go get them! Tasmania: Health Care 18 13:40 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania You tip up the container and there is nothing there—your medication is empty; you urgently need more. The local medical clinic has been closed for months and the closest ones are too full to take you. Your only option is an hour's drive away. You will wait ages just for a two-minute conversation for your script then pay through the nose for your appointment. That's the reality for people in parts of Tassie right now. But you don't need me to tell you that; you are living it. We know that we don't have enough GPs. Small towns like Ouse and Campbelltown are losing their clinics. People need to access medication and they are struggling to get it. That's why I was pleased to hear that the Tasmanian state government is looking at whether we should expand the powers of pharmacists. If allowing pharmacists to do scripts for things like asthma, migraines, oral contraceptives and chronic illnesses meant that people would get the medicine they need when they need it then this would be a step in the right direction. I don't think pharmacists should be able to prescribed everything; it should only lower-level stuff. Maybe could only be something a doctor had initially prescribed, and you could only get so many repeats before you need to go back to the doctor. Pharmacists will also need extra training to do this. I think there should be clear boundaries and a line in the sand between pharmacists and doctors. It is not a substitute for seeing a GP, and I'm not saying it should be. But it's pretty clear that we need to look at outside-the-box solutions when it comes to health in Tasmania. People are dying because they cannot get the care they need. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the state government's review. New South Wales: Floods 18 13:41 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I would like to thank everyone in this chamber and colleagues in the other place for the enormous support across the political divide in acknowledging the devastating floods across all of the eastern states but more so in my home state of New South Wales. To the people who live on the catchments of the Namoi, Macquarie, Bogan, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Tumut, Murray, Edward, Culgoa, Birrie, Narran, Warrego, Paroo, Barwon, Darling, Snowy River and Mirrool Creek. I know nothing said here can replace the lost family photos and heirlooms, the lost crops and stock, the lost homes and businesses or the mental anguish many people are going through. I want to pay tribute to the community effort, those who got out to help their neighbours and their friends, all those that travelled to assist and the many, many volunteers from the SES, police, Fire and Rescue and also Defence, who rolled up their sleeves and did everything to help with the flood rescue, including filling sandbags. Talking to local residents, I have heard of the mental and emotional strain of the vast amount of damage to homes, businesses and farms. Our regional communities have been through hell and, as the floodwaters subside, we are just starting to see the true state of the clean-up that is required. People are built tough in the regions but this flood has really tested many and has even pushed some right to the very edge. They appreciate knowing that all in this place are here for them when they need them and together, with that support, that will help them get through this disaster. Youth Voice In Parliament Week 19 13:43 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Today I want to amplify the words and hopes of one young Victorian who I represent. The Raise Our Voice Campaign helps turn up the volume of the voices of our young people and put on the record what matters to them. It is a wonderful initiative that brings the passionate views of young Australians straight to this parliament. I reckon that Sarah, a 19-year-old university student from the electorate of Goldstein, has a pretty good take on what she wants to see change in Australian society. Sarah says: Australians continue to grapple with growing inequality in recent years to the extent that 10% of the nation's people now possess 46% of its wealth. Furthermore, the cost-of-living crisis persists in disproportionately impacting lower income households. Coming from the electorate of Goldstein, my life has been characterised by privilege. In particular—like the other 64 per cent of Goldstein kids who went to an independent school—my education has provided me with skills and experiences that have equipped me to have the fair go that embodies the Australian experience. As inequality worsens, I am horrified to witness the cycle of privilege be cemented through our education system where in a compounding of disadvantage, families privileged enough to fork out tens of thousands of dollars on their children's education are rewarded with school better supported by the government than those who cannot. I hope this parliament sees equality as an objective worth pursuing and prioritises education at a primary, secondary and tertiary level and uses it as a tool to empower all of Australia in getting a 'fair go'. Sarah, I urge you to continue speaking up and raising your voice into the future; we would do well to listen to you. Housing 19 13:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Australians are living through a rental crisis. Today, yet again, we have confirmation that Hobart, in my home state of Tasmania, is the most unaffordable city in the country for renters. This is not just a policy failure; this is actually a policy design. It's a policy design endorsed by both of the major parties in this place, the political duopoly. Both of the major parties in this place regard landlords as a protected species, and the political duopoly in this place will stop at nothing to make sure that landlords are able to make as much money from rents as possible. They, the Coles and Woolworths of politics, have decided that the only constituency they want to win is the people who own homes, especially those who own multiple homes. The Liberals don't care about tenants and the Labor Party arrogantly assume that tenants will just vote for them anyway. Together, they hand over billions of dollars a year in subsidies to landlords in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, and they refuse to build the public housing necessary to address the crisis. It is absolutely perverse. Tenants are bled dry with unaffordable rents, and then, when they pay tax, the major parties get together to hand that tax over to the landlords. Then the RBA jacks up interest rates, and the increase in the cost of borrowing is passed on by the landlords to the tenants in the form of even higher rents. It's a rigged system. We're on our way to neo-feudalism in Australia. The tenants always lose. That's why we need a national freeze on rents in this country and we need it now. Housing 19 13:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I again want to highlight housing affordability across Australia. Today, National Shelter and SGS Economics & Planning released the 11th national Rental Affordability Index. As we all know, it's very sobering reading. We are in a housing crisis across the country. It's very easy to talk about it in terms of statistics, but we need to remember that there are people in our communities who are struggling to put food on the table due to the cost of housing. Canberra is at the forefront of this housing crisis. We currently have a shortfall of over 3,100 social houses. Under the very welcome HAF, we stand to get 540 or so houses. Clearly, there's a lot of work to be done on this. I would really like to thank National Shelter, ACT Shelter and others for the work they are doing on continuing to highlight the depth and breadth of this issue. I implore senators to work together to ensure that we can have a conversation in Australia about what housing is for. My sense in talking to people across the ACT is that people want housing to be viewed more as a human right, as something that people in our communities can afford, rather than as an investment vehicle that seems to forever be putting it more and more out of reach for younger generations and the most vulnerable in our communities. Digital Economy 20 13:49 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Australian cities are becoming digital surveillance precincts, with so-called 'smart city programs' being rolled out across the country. Invasive technologies such as facial recognition cameras, licence plate readers, smart lights, smart poles, smart cars, smart neighbourhoods, smart homes and smart appliances are all connected to wireless networks and communicating with each other. What's wrong with that? Technology is good, isn't it? All this is for your safety, security and convenience, isn't it? Let me tell you—your streets are spying on you, your mobile phone is spying on you and your cities are spying on you. The infrastructure for future lockdowns is being put into place right now. Don't be fooled. You're being set up to be tracked through your movements and through the future of your digital wallets. By handing over your data, you're handing over the ability to monitor your behaviour, which will soon be turned into a social credit score. Once the central bank digital currencies are in place, you won't get to spend your money without approval. Digital ID will soon become a reality in Australia. Many other countries are already rolling these systems out—countries like Canada, Scotland and many others. Eventually, you won't be able to access any government or public services, and you won't be able to travel across borders or access health care or the internet without a digital ID. You think you won't comply? I think you will. The last two years were the dress rehearsal, and we fell for it hook, line and sinker. Australians are sleepwalking into this technocratic future. While we're sitting around, scratching our chins, trying to work out whether this is really happening, Australia is drifting towards a dystopian digital future. Deep Sea Mining 20 13:51 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Unreliable, weather-dependent solar and wind power has put a price tag on our oceans. The phrase 'blue economy' is used to soften the ugly truth that, to achieve Australia's transition to net zero, the world's oceans must be strip-mined for rare-earth minerals. Batteries, solar panels and wind turbines are produced in China, in part using materials that companies, mostly Chinese, mine from the sea floor. Polymetallic nodules needed for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries lay along active volcanic rifts mostly found on the seabed. Giant vacuums suck up the seabed ecosystem to bury and choke the surrounding area in a thick layer of silt. Animals, eggs, sediment, plants—everything is taken off the seabed. A Greenpeace research fellow, distressed with what was being done, said: In all cases, seabed mining will, by its very nature, destroy species and habitats within the mining zones. There is no justification for a 'gold rush' to mine the seabed … International waters, particularly in the Pacific, contain more value than the combined mineral wealth of Earth's continents. The Pacific is ground zero for this green rush, with China holding the majority of licences that the United Nations International Seabed Authority handed out. The UN International Seabed Authority supports undersea mining because it aligns with the UN's 2030 so-called—and bogus— Sustainable Development Goals. The former head of the Office of Environmental Management and Mineral Resources at the UN International Seabed Authority is on record saying that the UN International Seabed Authority is 'not fit to regulate any activity in international waters' in part due to a perceived conflict of interest with mining giants. Corporations are in control, and, on behalf of those corporations, climate warriors are destroying everything they touch. Explain that to our children. We are one community, we are one nation, and we want our oceans protected from crazy climate warriors. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 20 13:53 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I couldn't have segued into this conversation better. I thank Senator Roberts for doing that so eloquently for me. Today I want to talk about the importance of science, more notably the importance of ensuring that parliamentarians have access to scientific advice that they can use to inform their speeches, their policies and our bills. The Greens played a pivotal role in advocating for the Parliamentary Budget Office, which offers independent advice to parliamentarians about the budget implications of their policies. A parliamentary office of science and technology, commonly nicknamed 'POST', would work in a similar way but would provide impartial scientific advice. The UK parliament has a POST that provides impartial, nonpartisan and peer reviewed briefings designed to make science research accessible to the UK parliament. Areas such as biology and health, energy and environment, physical sciences, computing and social sciences are all covered. Beyond this, the UK POST offers a range of services to select committees. It trains the next generations of policyshapers through the POST fellowship and other schemes. It holds seminars and events for the UK parliament and also for the public. It develops best practice with its legislators across the globe and supports foreign research advisory bodies. It facilitates knowledge exchange between the UK parliament and research communities. The establishment of a POST in the Australian parliament is supported by our stakeholders, including Science and Technology Australia and the Australian Academy of Science. Facts actually matter. Ensuring our parliamentarians are making statements that are actually factually correct also matters. Facts should be at the centre of the debates in this place, a place where these laws are made and impact the future of our country, but, unfortunately, in some cases, as we've seen today, shockingly this is often not the case. It is a clear example that this is why we need a POST. Reserve Bank of Australia 21 13:55 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the importance of an independent Reserve Bank. Speaking at the annual CEDA dinner, just last Tuesday night, Dr Lowe argued that lifting wages to match inflation would risk a painful 1970s or 1980s-like recession. This is an uncontroversial statement. With inflation currently sitting somewhere between 7½ and 8½ per cent, wage rises around that level would risk a cost price spiral and would risk a significant recession. Yet what is the response we get from a senior government minister—in fact, the former leader of the Labor Party? He attacked Dr Lowe's comments, calling them 'rubbish.' He argued it depended on how significant the wage increase was. But that's the whole point. The wage increase Dr Lowe was talking about was a wage increase in line with inflation. I find it very odd that while Minister Shorten is willing to attack Dr Lowe, he didn't attack the finance minister who said exactly the same thing in this place just a few days ago, that of course a wage rise at the level of inflation would be damaging and is not something the government is seeking. The importance of an independent Reserve Bank cannot be understated. The role of the Reserve Bank in keeping inflation under control is a key role in our economic settings. If you politicise the board then you risk the extraordinary history of consistent economic growth and the ability of Australia to weather the storm better than most comparable economies over the last 30 years. An independent Reserve Bank is central— (Time expired) Flight Centre, Emirates 21 13:57 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Recently I was approached by a constituent who had to change flights for a overseas family holiday. He made the changes through Flight Centre, the same travel agency through which he'd booked the tickets. In addition to the fare difference, he was charged a $1,350 administration fee for the two flights for his family of three—that's $225 per flight, per passenger. My constituent had no objection to paying the fare difference. But an additional fee of over $1,000 to change flights seems excessive to me. When my constituent contacted Flight Centre and the airline, Emirates, to complain about the excessive fee both claimed that the other was responsible for levying it. My office tried to query the fee on his behalf with both companies. Flight Centre told my office—with my constituent's permission—that they passed on the fare and tax difference calculated by Emirates but did not impose any fees of their own to make changes to the tickets. Emirates claimed that they do not make changes to travel agency issued tickets and recommended taking the matter up with—guess who?—Flight Centre. I made further inquiries to Emirates to clarify their answer, but then they said they were restricted from discussing the matter with anyone other than the passenger—whom they had actually dismissed previously. This was despite my office having already checked their requirements for being given the authority to make inquiries on my constituent's behalf. I'm sure you've heard the quote, 'success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.' That certainly seems to be case when it comes to charging excessive fees for flight changes. Whether it's Emirates or Flight Centre, one of these companies lacks the competence to honestly and openly reveal, to my constituent and my office, that they were responsible for charging this exorbitant fee—not good enough! World AIDS Day 21 13:59 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This Thursday is World AIDS Day, a time to reflect on the devastating loss of over 40 million lives over the course of this 40-year epidemic, and a time to review our progress and renew our bipartisan commitment to end HIV in Australia. The title of the UNAIDS 2022 report is In danger. In Australia we've seen a steady decline in new infections over the past decade, but UNAIDS's data shows new infections are now rising where they had been falling. We've seen such crises as COVID, monkeypox and climate change having stretched resources and access to treatment as well as to testing and prevention. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 22 14:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday in this chamber the minister said: … we are a government that delivers on our commitments—every single one of them. Minister, if your government is one that delivers on its commitments, why have you scrapped your promise to reduce electricity prices for Australian families by $275? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Scarr, for giving me the opportunity to talk about how we are delivering on our commitments to the Australian people. This is a government that, over the last six months, has got to work, from day 1, delivering on all its commitments—including in relation to our Powering Australia plan, which has significant investments to fix the energy mess we inherited after 10 years of denial, delay and dysfunction. I'm not going to stop explaining to the people of Australia the situation that we inherited—rising inflation, rising interest rates, a budget riddled with debt and deficit, pork barrelling and all the dodgy deals that have gone on. We have started unwinding all of that and responding to that. In the budget, we had significant commitments to getting our Powering Australia plan on the ground. Let's not forget—nine years, 22 failed energy policies. None of them worked. We saw a three-gigawatt decline in dispatchable power; that is under your record. We've got Snowy 2.0 running late. Not one energy policy landed. In the six months that we've been in charge, we have been investing in our Powering Australia plan. We've had Minister King deliver the supply we need. We've had Minister Bowen, the Treasurer and others dealing with the gas crisis, with the energy increases we've got. And we stand by the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, that they are the cheapest form of power, and that increasing our investment in renewables will decrease energy prices. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, yesterday you also said: … we are not a government that breaks promises. If that's the case, will electricity prices be $275 lower for Australian households by the time of the next election? 14:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We will deliver our Powering Australia plan, which is the promise we took to the Australian people. It was supported by modelling done in 2020 about energy prices in 2025. Our commitment is to deliver the plan we took to the election. That is exactly what we are doing, with our investments we've made in the budget, in the Marinus Link, in renewable energy zones, in offshore wind, in pumped hydro, in community batteries, in solar banks—all of that progressed in our first opportunity through our first budget. That is what a responsible, mature government does. We are delivering on our promises, responding to the economic circumstances of the times, delivering a sustainable and responsible budget and delivering on those election commitments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X On a matter of direct relevance: Senator Scarr has asked directly about an element of the Powering Australia plan, being the government's commitment to reduce power prices by $275. The minister may be being broadly relevant talking about the plan, but he was asking about a specific element of it. I ask you to draw the minister to be directly relevant. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I advise the Senate that, at the start of this question, there was a broader statement about promises generally. I do believe that the minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING We will deliver on our Powering Australia plan, which sets out all of our commitments as an overarching document, and we've made a cracking start of that in the first budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, a second supplementary question? 14:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note the minister has not referred to the magic $275 number. Why won't you just admit that your government does break its promises and that within just a few months has abandoned its election promise to deliver a $275 electricity price reduction for Australian households? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The question and the proposition outlined in the question are simply wrong. We are delivering on our Powering Australia plan, and the uncomfortable truth that Senator Scarr is refusing to acknowledge is the chaos and dysfunction that we inherited from you. We are not only delivering on our Powering Australia plan; we are also fixing the mess that they left. We are fixing the mess in the energy markets that you left, where the lights were going to go out and there wasn't enough supply, and the energy price increases that you hid before the election—20 per cent increases. We are fixing supply and we are working on how we can manage downward pressure on energy prices. We've been upfront with the community about the situation we are facing. At the same time, whilst fixing up all your mess, we're delivering on our commitments. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 23 14:06 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Liberals and Nationals said that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic strategy—and, sadly, it was the only strategy that they delivered. Now that Australians are feeling the crunch of cost-of-living rises and stagnant wages, can you outline the government's workplace relations policies, how they will actually help Australians deal with the cost of living and why this is actually important? 14:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Grogan. I would love nothing more than to explain how the government's workplace relations policies will help working people get ahead in life, because I think one thing most Australians can agree on is that the workplace relations system in our country is not working for workers or for employers. It's not delivering the fairness, the gender equality, the productivity gains or the economic growth that Australia needs. But the Albanese government's workplace bargaining policies will get wages moving again. That's something Australian workers desperately need after nearly 10 years of low wages under those who sit opposite and still haven't changed their ways. The fact that this was, in their own words, a deliberate design feature of the previous government's management of the economy is something we'll be reminded of for many years to come. This shows how little those opposite think of workers in this country, and their contributions to the public debate on our policies have shown that nothing has changed. It's the same old, same old from the Liberal and National parties in this country. The Albanese government's package has been designed to lift the wages of Australian workers by putting job security and gender equality as objects of the Fair Work Act and by creating a pay equity expert panel and a care and community sector expert panel to, in particular, assist women and those working in the care economy. We'll also make flexible work arrangements much more accessible and prohibit pay secrecy clauses so people, in particular women, are free to talk about their pay at work. We'll place limits on the use of fixed-term employment contracts so people don't get stuck on endless probation. We'll sunset substandard Work Choices-era zombie agreements. We'll ensure the agreement termination process is fit for purpose and fair. We'll ban job ads that pay less than the minimum wage. We'll make the better off overall test simple, flexible and fair. And we'll improve access to single- and multi-employer agreements because bargaining delivers for workers and businesses. If you're serious about fixing the cost of living, you need to get wages moving for all Australians, and that's exactly what we'll do. (Time expired) The PRESIDEN 112096 Senator Grogan, your first supplementary question? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Can the minister outline how the government's workplace relations policies will support businesses to avoid a race to the bottom on wages? 14:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can, Senator Grogan, because we want to make more agreements that benefit both employers and workers. I understand that the concept of workers and businesses coming to agreements is something that the opposition just cannot get its head across, but actually it can be done. And, importantly, we want to stop the race to the bottom by those who undercut businesses who are genuinely trying to do the right thing by their workers. Let me give you one great example of businesses who are embracing this new era of workplace relations that will benefit workers and employers. As reported this morning in the Financial Review, the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning manufacturing and installation association has wasted no time starting their multi-employer bargaining. We hear the laughter and the scoffs from those on the other side that there might be employers who actually want to come to agreements. This group met the AMWU on Monday to discuss ways to use the new laws to deliver higher pay and standards for staff. This is what the Albanese Labor government wants to see more of—employers, unions and workers coming together to deliver a win-win. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary question? 14:10 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Can the minister outline why it is urgent that the government acts on this workplace relations policy as a priority? 14:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can, because it is urgent that we get wages moving again. We understand from all of the public debate we've seen over the last few months, backing in the last 10 years of inaction and deliberate design features of economy being low wages, that for the opposition it's never the right time for workers to get a pay rise. It was never the right time during the 10 years they were in office, and it's not the right time now that they are in opposition. Well, we have had enough. Workers have had enough. It's time to get wages moving again. The best way to do this is by encouraging more agreements to be made and stop a race to the bottom on wages. It's good to see that Senator Colbeck has a little bit of fight left in him, because no-one else on the other side does. Australian workers have waited long enough, and, while waiting, they have turned up every day and done their job. Senator WATT 245759 See, Senator Colbeck, I knew you could be an example for your colleagues! Workers have been waiting. They've been turning up every day and doing their job. It's now time we did ours and legislated for secure jobs and better pay. Labor cares about working people. We care about giving them a pay rise so they can keep up with the rising— (Time expired) Assistant Treasurer 24 14:11 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. I refer to comments by the Assistant Treasurer reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on negotiations between the government and the Greens on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill. Mr Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, said, 'There'd been no sign-off on anything'. Yet, last week in the chamber, Senator McKim stated: There is absolutely no doubt that Minister Jones and I had an agreement, and any claim that there was no agreement is false. Minister, can you clarify for the Senate: was there an agreement between Minister Jones and Senator McKim? And, if so, why did the Assistant Treasurer renege on this deal? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. I don't think it's any secret in this place that we work across the chamber negotiating legislation and possible amendments. We work collegiality where we can. That is our preference. We want to get legislation through. We have a government for the first time in— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Smith? Senator Dean Smith 241710 On a point of order—the question was very specific. Was there an agreement? The PRESIDENT 112096 There was also a preamble, Senator Smith. I will listen carefully to the minister. If she's not getting to the point of the question, I will draw her to it, but, at the moment, she is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING There were discussions, as you know, through the week around a whole range of pieces of legislation, including with the Greens on a number of pieces of legislation. In respect of one element of those, there is more work to be done before we could finalise a position. We have explained that to the Greens. We have explained to the Greens the work that needs to be done from the government's point of view before we can reach agreement on one of those bills. We appreciate the engagement of the Greens in assisting us with our legislation this week and with all colleagues in the chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry. Senator Smith? Senator Dean Smith 241710 President, with 45 seconds to go, I remind Senator Gallagher that the question was specific. The PRESIDENT 112096 What's your point of order? Senator Dean Smith 241710 Was there an agreement? The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister has gone to the question of an agreement. Senator GALLAGHER ING We weren't able to reach a final agreement on that bill. There have been discussions amongst the parties about how best to proceed where there isn't agreement that could be finally reached to progress the bill in this chamber. There had been discussions, and I accept that there is more work to be done. I thank Senator McKim for his engagement. I would also point out this is cleaning up. Again, the legislation we are working on, remember when you voted—how many times?—26 times against a royal commission into the banking and financial sector? This is actually progressing the outcomes of that work. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, your first supplementary question. 14:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The Assistant Treasurer had a subsequent blunder yesterday when the government moved an amendment to a government bill being managed by the Assistant Treasurer that was identical to an opposition amendment the government had opposed in the House of Representatives. Has the Treasurer or his office met with the Assistant Treasurer to counsel him on parliamentary process, legislative management— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I submit that that question is not a supplementary question. The 10000 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X On the point of order, wide latitude was granted to the minister in answering the primary question—wide latitude to talk generally about deals and about conduct. This goes, very clearly, to the conduct and capability of the Assistant Treasurer, who seems to be an ongoing embarrassment for the government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I listened carefully to the points that were made, and I am advised that it is not a supplementary question. As Senator Birmingham said, often latitude is given, and latitude can be given on this occasion, but it is up to the minister as to whether she answers the question or not. I'm going to invite Senator Smith to finish asking the question. Senator Dean Smith 241710 Shall I start again, President? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I suggest that we're happy to give leave for him to rephrase the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 It's in your hands, Senator Smith. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Has the Treasurer or his office met with the Assistant Treasurer to counsel him on parliamentary process, legislative management or how to conduct negotiations with parliamentary colleagues in good faith? The PRESIDENT 112096 I will give the minister the opportunity to answer that. 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory [inaudible] particular piece of legislation. Can I just say that Minister Jones is an absolutely fine minister, an outstanding person and a good friend of mine. I have known him since I was 25 years old. An honourable senator: Five years ago! Senator G ING Yes, just a couple of summers ago, just a couple of turns around the clock! He has hit the ground running, again, cleaning up nine years of wasted time, of work that was left undone and recommendations that weren't followed through. He is putting through a legislative agenda that we are working through, including probably each sitting week in this place. I have no doubt that Minister Jones, in his work with stakeholders and in the work that he will do to finalise a position and to consult further, will include consultations with the Greens and with others to look at how we can get legislation progressed. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary question. 14:19 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia He's hit the ground running and fallen over! Given it is clear that the Assistant Treasurer is not capable of managing Treasury legislation, conducting negotiations, managing stakeholders or administering his portfolio, does the Treasurer retain confidence in the abilities of his Assistant-Treasurer? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I missed the first half of that question, but I answered it in the second question: Minister Jones is an outstanding minister and a fine colleague, who works day and night in his portfolio. There are a lot of stakeholders and a lot of different views in this sector. I've had that shadow portfolio and it is not an easy portfolio to manage. There are stakeholders and different points of view, it has a heavy legislative focus and it involves lots of engagements across the financial services sector, from the big banks to the consumer representatives and everything in between. He is doing an outstanding job in delivering on the government's agenda and the reforms that we want to see done. In the case of the legislation that Senator Smith's original question related to, before he veered off track: there is more work to be done to reach agreement about how to progress that through the Senate, including talking with stakeholders. That was the decision that the government took this week. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS New Zealand Parliament Delegation 26 14:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania President, before I start—or before you start the clock ticking over, and I'm sorry if I've missed it—I just wonder if we could acknowledge the visiting New Zealand delegation of parliamentarians in the chamber today? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I do acknowledge the visiting delegation from New Zealand. Welcome to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 They are missing the Greens, but they're still very welcome! The PRESIDENT 112096 Now to your question, Senator Whish-Wilson. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Great Barrier Reef 26 14:21 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to Senator Wong, representing the climate minister. Minister, another UNESCO scientific report has recommended that the Great Barrier Reef be put on the World Heritage in danger list because its outstanding universal values are threatened by climate change. In responding to the report this morning, the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, publicly acknowledged that we need to keep warming below 1.5 degrees to save the Great Barrier Reef. Minister, your government's legislated 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 is consistent with two degrees of global warming, and the science tells us that this is a death sentence for the reef as we have known it. Millions of Australians who love the reef won't be fooled by this apparent cognitive dissonance. Minister, what is it going to be: a climate plan that limits global warming to 1.5 degrees, and gives the reef a chance, or to two degrees and a death sentence to the reef as we have been lucky enough to have known it in our lifetimes? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This government was elected with a plan to take strong action on climate, and that is what we will do. This party, over many years—over a decade—has had a very clear, ambitious and strong position on climate. And we have not just talked about it; we won government and we delivered action on climate. Regrettably, we lost government and it has been a number of years, nearly 10 years, not only of inaction but of denial and delay and dysfunction on that side of the parliament, and Australia is the poorer for it. I was asked about the 43 per cent target: we were clear with the Australian people before the election, and I would make the point that that is consistent with the net-zero-by-2050 position that we have also been committed to. It is the case—and I'll make two points about the Great Barrier Reef: the first is that— Senator Canavan 245212 Record coal! Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Canavan! I will make two points about the Great Barrier Reef: firstly, obviously, climate is a risk to all our natural environment. We know that. We've been told that, and that is why we need to take the action we are taking and that is why we need to work as we did at the previous Conference of the Parties— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I know that those opposite don't like to hear this. We need to work like Minister Bowen did at the Conference of the Parties to ensure that there is no backsliding on the Glasgow commitments, and that we maintain the ambitious position and continue to build on the position that was agreed in Glasgow. We also have a lot of work to do in our domestic economy, and the government is committed to doing so. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, your first supplementary question. 14:24 Senator WHISH-WIL 195565 Tasmania SON () (): There are 114 new fossil fuel projects awaiting approval in Australia. Minister, do you agree that every new fossil fuel project approved is a nail in the coffin of the Great Barrier Reef? How can we save the reef and keep warming to 1.5 degrees if we are actively and deliberately making climate change worse? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't accept the premise at the end of that question, which suggests that a government that is willing to work with the Australian people to shift this economy from being one of the most emissions-intensive economies in the world to a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050—the thing about the Greens is they think you can say a target and it will be delivered. You see, we actually understand there are workers and industries and communities and people who have to be part of this journey. We all have to change. As I've said previously, I am grateful that the Australian people have elected a parliament and a government that is willing to act on climate—and we will. No amount of coming in here and asking questions like that, which suggest that we also don't care, will detract from the fact that we are serious about taking action, and we will. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, your second supplementary? 14:25 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania We will find out how serious you are very soon, Senator Wong. Minister, the previous Morrison government went to extraordinary and shameful lengths to lobby, deny, dodge and deceive the international community and prevent an 'in danger' listing of the Great Barrier Reef by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Will your government do the same, or do you now accept the reef's outstanding universal values are in danger in line with this morning's released report? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As the environment minister made clear today— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Go and rub some more coal in your face, Matt! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, you have asked your question to Minister Wong. She was on her feet with an answer, but there were so many interjections across the chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, you were one of the people I just called. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, President. Look, we understand the position in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. I just make the point that I understand the report is not an 'in danger' listing; it's advice to the World Heritage Committee. Obviously the mission report is one source of information that will inform UNESCO's advice to the committee about the state of conservation of the reef. As Ms Plibersek said this morning, we understand—those opposite might like to deny it— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, what is your point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 It's a point of relevance. I asked the minister whether they were going to back the previous government's stance on denying the UNESCO report and the advice on the Great Barrier Reef being in danger. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. There was an enormous preamble also to that question, and the minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU I was directly responding that the mission report is one source of information that will inform UNESCO's advice to the World Heritage Committee about the state of conservation of the reef. I was also referencing the environment minister's statement this morning that, unlike those opposite, we don't deny that climate change has an effect on the reef and on all of our natural environment— (Time expired) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 27 14:28 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, how will an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice help close the gap in life outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Green for her question. I thank the many senators across this place, and not only those on this side of the chamber, who have sought to engage with this important reform respectfully and in a nonpartisan way. We know that the gap in life expectancy between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians is unacceptably wide: 7.8 years for women and 8.6 years for men. None of us should accept this. I think all of us should recognise that decades of failed government policies have failed First Nations peoples and failed to close the gap. This is precisely the point about the proposed Voice to Parliament. It came about because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wanted a greater say in the matters that affect them. They want to be empowered to take control of their own lives, not have policies and laws dictated to them by politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra. The Voice is about enabling a better future that will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians on the ground, in communities in practical ways—better outcomes in health, education, housing—because we know from experience that you cannot create better policy and close the gap without listening to and hearing the voices of our First Nations people. The solutions to so many challenges are to be found in those communities, not in Canberra, and the Voice will make sure that those solutions are heard by policymakers here in the parliament. I note the decision of some opposite to oppose the Voice before they've even seen the legislation. The argument seems to be, 'We need change, so let's keep doing more of the same.' Well, Australians know that does not make sense, and it is ultimately the Australian people, not the politicians, who will decide this referendum, and I believe Australians want to see a better future for all Australians. (Time expired) The 112096 Senator Green, a first supplementary? 14:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland How will the Voice ensure that the views of First Nations peoples in remote and regional Australia are heard? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Green for her supplementary question. Let's remember this: the Uluru Statement from the Heart was the outcome of 12 regional dialogues, in places like Dubbo, Broome, Ross River and Cairns, with representatives from right across remote and regional Australia. So the arguments that some make, somewhat mischievously, that this is all about what people in the cities want aren't correct. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a historic First Nations consensus on the way forward. As part of that, the Voice to the parliament— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESI 112096 Order! The interjections across the chamber are disorderly. I have the minister on her feet answering her question. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Payne, a point of order? Senator Payne M56 Yes, in relation to language used by a senator. It's not acceptable to swear across the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. I did not hear that interjection. I am going to ask the senator to withdraw, but I'm also going to ask senators to listen with respect. Senator Chis 39801 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a historic First Nations consensus on the way forward. As part of that, the Voice to the Parliament will make sure that voices in rural and regional communities are heard on policies and on laws. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary? 14:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, what are the next steps on the road to a referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Green. A bill to update the Referendum Machinery Act will shortly be introduced to the parliament. This will take into account advice from the Referendum Working Group, which has set out key principles for the Voice, which Senator Dodson has spoken about in this place. It provides independent advice to the parliament and the government. It is chosen by and representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is empowering; it is community led; it is inclusive; it is respectful; it is culturally informed and gender balanced, and includes youth; it is accountable and transparent; and it works alongside existing structures. Let us remember what was said in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This is what was said to the nation: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. (Time expire d) Asylum Seekers 28 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the minister for immigration, Minister Watt. Many would have seen the hundreds of people gathered out the front of Parliament House rallying against the government's failure to take action so far to address the truly heartbreaking plight of people languishing on bridging visas. In the gallery is Zahra, who I sat down with this morning to hear her story. Zahra is a refugee from Iran who was part of the first family sent to Nauru last time Labor was in government. Last year Zahra's eldest daughter, Sahar, finished school and won a scholarship to study at Newcastle University. She started studying this year, but after seven weeks the government took her study rights away and she had to leave because she turned 18 and was on a bridging visa. Minister, why won't the government let Sahar follow her dream to become a human rights lawyer and complete her studies? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for your question, Senator Pocock. Zahra and Sahar, welcome to the Senate. It's terrific that you've been able to join everyone here today. Our government, obviously, has put forward a range of policies for how we intend to deal with people who are on bridging visas, in addition to people who continue to be in offshore processing—particularly in Nauru. These are very difficult issues, and I understand the difficulties that they no doubt cause to Zahra and Sahar and the rest of their family. These are issues that we are trying to balance with a range of other factors to make sure that the policies that we do ultimately bring in are enduring and can remain in place into the longer term. This does take some time, and I understand that that does leave some individuals in difficult circumstances. Again, I understand that that is not an easy situation. Senator Pocock, as you may know, in my career before I came here I did quite a lot of legal work with refugees. I know there are other members in this chamber who have done the same thing, so I can assure you that we do understand the personal difficulties that these situations cause. We are weighing up a range of factors, and I do hope that we can come to a resolution of these issues as quickly as possible so that people like Zahra and Sahar are relieved of the burden that they're currently under. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a first supplementary question. 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Given that these families have been living with so much uncertainty for so long, are you able to inform the Senate and Sahar when people like her, who have been living in our community, working and paying taxes, will finally have their migration status resolved? What is the time line? 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously, I can't give a particular time frame for particular individuals, but one of the issues that we have had to deal with since taking office is the outrageous backlog in visa applications that existed under the former government. I was shocked when we came to office that the backlog in visa applications had blown out to nearly a million in this country. That compares to a backlog of about 200,000 when we lost office in 2013. It had blown out under the former government to nearly a million, and this is affecting a range of people in our community. It is no doubt affecting Zahra and Sahar and their family. It is affecting a large number of other people on bridging visas. It's also impacting employers, including in industries like agriculture, manufacturing and many other industries, who cannot get the workers they need because the backlog is so long. We have applied increased resources to the immigration department to clear that backlog. It's now down to well below 900,000, and it's something we intend to pursue— (Time expired) The P 10000 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary question. 14:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Apart from pointing to the backlog, what is the reason that the government has taken six months to put forward some clarity on an election commitment? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I do understand that for people who are waiting for visa applications to be processed, that is a really difficult situation for people to be in. As I say, as well as impacting on those people who are waiting for those applications to be processed, it's impacting on employers all around the country, who are desperate to get workers who have been waiting for their visas to be processed for a very long time. For all the complaints we hear from people on the other side about what needs to be done to assist regional employers to get the workers they need, they did nothing about the visa backlog. It's also, of course, impacting on the very people that you're asking about. At the Jobs and Skills Summit, we committed to put on about, I think, 500 extra immigration staff to help clear that backlog, in addition to the work that had already been done. Because of that, we've now been able to bring that backlog down to 800-odd thousand from the nearly one million we inherited. It's still too long. We're still putting in more resources. Hopefully, that will make a difference to the people you're asking questions about. Regional Small Business Support Program 29 14:39 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I'm glad the minister has been talking about workers in the regions because my question is to the same minister—but with his emergency management hat on—Senator Watt. Minister, in estimates I asked you whether the Regional Small Business Support Program was to be continued after 31 December—the end of the current round of funding. Your answer at the time was that you were considering your options. Minister, what are those options? 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Davey. I presume the program you're talking about is the Regional Small Business Support Program pilot, which was a form of financial counselling. I think it was originally offered after the bushfires but it has been going for a couple of years. As I indicated to you at estimates, that was a matter that we were giving consideration to, because the former government, despite saying that they thought this was a really important program, only decided to put money in the budget through to 31 December this year. I don't quite understand why the former government, that you were part of, decided to have a funding cliff for this service, given that you thought it was so important. Be that as it may, again, that's something that we've inherited. I recently approved an extension of that service to 31 March 2023, so that these services had funding certainty to carry them through the high-risk weather season. I'm not sure, Senator Davey, whether you are aware but the former government, of which you were a part, actually commissioned a review of this service which found that rather than the service primarily being used by businesses who were suffering from the impact of natural disasters, in fact it was mainly being used to deal with issues arising from COVID-19 and the impact on businesses from that, and from other matters as well, and certainly not the kind of floods that we're seeing at the moment. But we decided, regardless of the findings of the review, that it was important to give those services certainty and it was important to give their clients certainty and that's why we extended it until 31 March next year, to carry them through this disaster season. Those services that have funding remaining at that point in time will be able to continue it beyond 31 March to 30 June next year. In the meantime, we are giving thought to what other services and funding could be provided to provide the kind of financial counselling that you're talking about. But it would've really helped if the funding didn't cut out on 31 December in the first place. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, a first supplementary? 14:42 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales (—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): I would say we were expecting to be able to do a MYEFO, which could have addressed that. We appreciate hearing that it's extended to 31 March. I am amazed to hear that you don't consider COVID-19 a disaster for small businesses. Minister, you have, in your possession, a letter written to you by the New South Wales Rural Financial Counselling Service director— (Time expired) 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think I got a question there, but I think I know generally where it was heading. Senator Wong 00AOU I give leave to finish the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave has been granted for you to finish the question. 14:43 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I really appreciate that. How will hundreds, and possibly thousands, of farmers and rural small businesses be assisted if these financial counsellors are not funded to continue their work post, what you have now confirmed, 31 March 2023? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, this program was initially created to assist small businesses who were suffering financial impacts of drought or natural disasters. And as I said, the review that was commissioned by the government, of which you were a part, found that in actual fact most people were using it for the business impacts of COVID-19, which is not what the service was provided for. I had the option of pursuing what your government had put in place, which was to cut funding out on 31 December. But my view was that it was important that those services and their clients had certainty to carry them through the disaster season, which is why we have made extra funding available to carry them through that season. That's not what your government did. Your government, in all of its budgets, didn't extend the funding beyond 31 December. We are continuing that service. You mentioned farmers, Senator Davey. There is actually a separate funding program available for rural counselling for farmers and that remains in place. There is no risk to that funding at all. You shouldn't be mixing up those programs— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, a second supplementary? 14:44 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales What does the Rural Financial Counselling Service say to the current 130 small business clients that they are going to be unable to assist post, maybe, 31 March 2023, which was not in the budget? Who will provide advice to these businesses in the West Wyalong local government area and others like that? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Davey, it's obviously a matter for each of those services to decide what they want to say to their clients, but one thing they might say is: 'Isn't it good we had a government that extending the funding beyond 31 December this year?' The situation that your government left them in was that the funding was going to cut out on 31 December this year. You might have forgotten about it, but your government had a budget back in, I think, March or April this year and decided to not extend the funding. Now you want to come in here and ask why we haven't provided funding any more long term than you did. We've actually extended this funding beyond what your government had agreed to, to 31 March this year, because we do recognise that these people need some certainty. Your government decided that is was going to cut out the funding right in the middle of the disaster season. That's how much you cared about those services. We've actually taken a different view, provided that certainty, and there is an ongoing program for rural financial counselling for farmers. There is no risk to that whatsoever. In the meantime, we are considering other options for financial counselling for businesses to go with the grants that have already been approved for small businesses. (Time expired) Australian Defence Force 31 14:45 Senator LA 250026 Tasmania MBIE () (): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. Last week it was revealed that the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, has given officers of Special Operations Task Group 28 days to provide reasons why they should not have to return any honours they received throughout their service in Afghanistan. This order applies to officers of the ranks of captain and brigadier. It excludes officers of the rank of major general. How convenient. One officer of the rank of major general who was in the headquarters responsible for the Special Operations Task Group, who received a Distinguished Service Cross for his service, was the now general, Angus Campbell. Does the minister support there being one rule for the higher-ups and one rule for the rest? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This obviously goes to the implementation of the Brereton report, which contained 143 recommendations, many of which were resolved by the previous government. The Deputy Prime Minister has instructed Defence to detail a pathway for closing out the remaining 42 recommendations. One of the outstanding recommendations is the one referenced in Senator Lambie's question, which deals with the review of the award of decorations to those in the command positions of troop, squadron and task group level during particular Special Operations Task Group rotations. I am advised that the Chief of the Defence Force has written to a small number of people. Obviously I don't propose to comment on the outcome of each of those particular considerations. I would make the point that the government's focus is on implementing the Brereton recommendations. In relation to the last part of your question, Senator Lambie, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Marles, has stated that there is no cause to extend the parameters of the recommendation, and where the CDF has acted it is because there is an evidence based reason to do so. The government remains committed to ensuring that the outstanding recommendations of the Brereton report are appropriately acted upon. I'm advised the CDF is seeking to do that where there has been a detectable pattern of behaviour underpinned by credible reports of misconduct by ADF personnel in Afghanistan. I'm also advised this applies to a very small number of people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a first supplementary? 14:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Office of the Special Investigator is investigating soldiers, while the higher commanders are protected by what the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel calls 'a blanket exemption from liability'. Given the extent of the findings that have led to this punitive action, does the minister believe this blanket exemption remains appropriate? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I do acknowledge Senator Lambie's ongoing focus on not only these issues but the issues of the welfare of serving and previously serving personnel. The focus of the government and, I'm advised, the CDF is to implement the Brereton report recommendation. The parameters of those recommendations were obviously a matter for the Brereton report. As I said, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated that the government does not believe there is cause to extend the parameters of the recommendations. We are committed to implementing the report to the fullest extent possible. We understand this is a difficult issue, but one that the DPM has made clear in our commitment to engaging with— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, your second supplementary question. 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, the blanket exemption has been criticised on both its grounds and its effects by a number of well-credentialled experts in this space. If the Chief of Defence Force can decide to demand the return of medals, who has the authority to decide whether to demand the return of his? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The advice I have is that a defence honour may only be cancelled by the Governor-General. The process in relation to any such cancellation would be that the relevant minister would make a recommendation to the Governor general to cancel such an honour. But, again, I make this point—and I don't intend to get into personal reflections on anybody: the government's view, and the CDF's actions are consistent with this, is that the recommendations of the Brereton report should be acted upon. CDF's actions are consistent with the government's policy position. Economy 32 14:51 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on some of the challenges facing the country and how the government is responding with responsible economic management? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill; I acknowledge her length of service in the economic portfolio and all the achievements she has made there. This is an important question, and an opportunity to update the Senate on global conditions impacting Australian households. Last week, the OECD released its updated outlook and it outlined some of those tough challenges ahead. The report showed that the global economy is experiencing the most profound energy crisis since the 1970s, while also dealing with the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Russia's war in Ukraine is driving significantly higher energy prices all around the world. In the report, the OECD is predicting global growth to slow from 3.1 per cent 2.2 per cent next year. We know that the economic pressures coming at us from around the world are felt most acutely around the kitchen table. Australian households are more exposed to these global conditions than they should be, due to the wasted decade of the Liberal and National government's policy failures. While the government cannot control many of the global pressures that will impact on Australian households, we are working to clean up the mess left behind by those opposite and to take control of what we can. We're responding to the legacy of a wasted decade in energy, in skills, in productivity and in real wages growth. We're taking a responsible approach; that's why our budget was the most responsible budget in years, returning 99 per cent of the tax revenue upgrades over the next two years to the budget in comparison with the Liberal and National average of around 40 per cent. This is responsible budget management which puts no extra pressure on inflation. We are absolutely determined to get wages moving because we know that a strong economy has to mean strong wages for workers, otherwise the economy is not delivering for the working people like it needs to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary question. 14:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister, for your kind words and for your excellent response about responsible economic management. Can the minister outline what assessment the International Monetary Fund recently made of the government's economic management? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill for her supplementary question. Yes, I can. The IMF's recent statement confirms that the Albanese Labor government's budget was responsible, right for the time and readies Australia for the future. This is a ringing endorsement of the government's approach to responsible economic management. The IMF states that the government's near-term fiscal restraint will support monetary policy in addressing demand pressures. This is an endorsement of our fiscal strategy, which puts a premium on restraint. As a result of our spending discipline, payments will fall in real terms over the next two years and real spending growth will average just 0.3 per cent over the forward estimates. The October budget introduced responsible spending measures to provide cost-of-living relief, alleviate skill shortages, promote productivity growth and facilitate the climate transition. The IMF notes that the budget's streamlining of spending should help avoid adding to aggregate demand pressures in the economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary? 14:55 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Minister, can you also detail what the IMF had to say about the government's plan to boost inclusion, to encourage female workforce participation and to tackle skill shortages? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank, again, Senator O'Neill for that excellent question. Under those opposite our economy wasn't delivering like Australians needed it to. The IMF praised the government's policy that tackles skill shortages and boosts workforce participation, including key outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit. Our budget delivered quality investments in the capacity of the Australian economy and the capabilities of the Australian people. This includes our fee-free TAFE, more university places, delivering cheaper child care for 1.26 million families and expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks for working parents. The IMF's independent assessment confirms that, despite a difficult international outlook and significant economic and budget challenges here at home, Australians should be optimistic about the longer term future of our economy and our country. Senate Committees 33 14:56 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. I refer to the proposed parliamentary sitting schedule for 2023 that has been widely distributed by the government and which shows that the government wants to scrap additional budget estimates for early next year, a departure from practice in place since the 1990s. Minister, when Labor was elected, the Prime Minister said: The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency … Why, then, is this government scrapping additional estimates and reducing Senate estimates scrutiny from the conventional four weeks in a normal year to just three weeks? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 We are fortunate that Senator Birmingham has a loud and clear voice, because it was very hard to hear the question from the interjections. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I've just brought the chamber to order. 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I do love a question on accountability and transparency from the coalition, and I particularly love it on a day where we know that the House is preparing this week to debate a censure of your former leader for the double-up ministers that he invented. I'm asked a question by a man who probably knew about Mr Taylor covering up the price increase ahead of the election. Where was your interest then, Senator Birmingham? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevancy, point of order, the minister has gone nowhere near accountability and transparency from— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McKenzie 207825 I haven't finished. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, it is a not a debating point. You raised your point. You're not in a debate with me. You raise a point of order. I ask you to resume your seat. That is what I expect you to do. I will draw Minister Wong to the substantive nature of Senator Birmingham's question. Senator WONG 00AOU I was responding to the request to talk about transparency and accountability. Isn't it interesting all of a sudden, now he's on the other side of the table? He was happy to protect Senator McKenzie. He's happy not to condemn the former Prime Minister. He's happy to defend Mr Taylor hiding a price increase in electricity before the election. All of those things he's happy to do, but now he cares about Senate estimates. If the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate would like to have a look at what is actually happening, you've still got estimates going. We've still got estimates going. Last night Senator Gallagher was again there, answering Senator Hume's questions. There was an air of great repetition about them, but we're very happy to keep answering the same questions over and over again. Senator McGrath 217241 A point of order on relevance: the question went to the sitting schedule, in relation to estimates, being reduced by 25 per cent, and Minister Wong has gone nowhere near the estimates schedule. I don't think the minister has mentioned estimates at all. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question also contained other elements, which the minister has gone to. I'll remind her of the question, and she has 14 seconds left. Senator WONG 00AOU The Senate will be aware that we have just delivered a budget. Estimates hearings followed that. Spillover hearings are continuing this week. There will obviously not be a MYEFO, so there will not be estimates after that. But we are very happy to keep doing endless estimates if those opposite wish— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have called your leader to ask his first supplementary. 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Will the government drop its outrageous proposal to cut Senate estimates in 2023 by a full week, and instead commit to programming additional estimates hearings early next year, as has been the practice on both sides of this parliament for decades? Or are the government's assurances of transparency and accountability just another broken promise? 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I've said, I understand that the proposal involves a recognition that we have just had a budget; therefore, there is not intended to be a MYEFO. It is usual that additional estimates would follow MYEFO. I would anticipate that the usual pattern of budget MYEFO, with additional, supplementary and budget estimates would be returned, as we said post the election, to the normal MYEFO and budget process. Again I say no-one on in this place—I suspect, even on that side—believes it when you talk about transparency, Senator Birmingham, because we lived through nine years of your government refusing to legislate an anticorruption commission— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a secondary supplementary? 15:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government's proposed sitting schedule for 2023 also proposes four additional Senate-only sitting days on a Friday. However, the Senate standing orders provide for no established routine of business on a Friday. In the interests of accountability and transparency, Senator Wong, will the government commit to having a question time on any scheduled Friday sitting? 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We will work with the Senate— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham has just completed a question. The minister was on her feet answering it, and I've had to immediately call you to order. Senator WONG 00AOU Of course we will work with the Senate on how Fridays would be arranged, just as we worked with the opposition and the crossbench on how we would deal with this sitting week and as we dealt with last sitting week. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Birmingham, Senator Gallagher has been very consultative, including with your colleague, on the Friday sitting this week. I would anticipate the same degree of consultation would be engaged in by the government—which, of course, is very different to what we saw from those opposite when in government. And on that basis, President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Assistant Treasurer 34 15:06 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the performance of the Assistant Treasurer. Before I address the answer given by Senator Gallagher in response to my question on the performance of the Assistant Treasurer, I think it's very, very important to recognise this very, very important and momentous occasion. The government has surrendered on its commitment to transparency and scrutiny. What we just heard in the final question asked by Senator Birmingham was the revelation that many of us caught a glimpse of this morning that the government has decided that it will not put itself to the normal test of scrutiny that other governments have put themselves to for two to three decades. What we're talking about here is the decision of the government to take out of the parliamentary program four days of budget estimates. That is almost 60 hours of scrutiny that the opposition and other non-government senators can put the government through. It is the first time in almost 30 years that the government has consciously decided to remove itself from scrutiny. This is perhaps the most remarkable revelation in the six-month history of the government so far. Of course, there is a 'get out of jail' clause for the government, and that is that it's a draft program— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Urquhart, on a point of order? Senator Urquhart 231199 My understanding is that Senator Smith rose to take note of the question that he asked Senator Gallagher. He's now floating off into the question that Senator Birmingham asked Senator Wong, so I would ask you to draw him back to whatever he's going to talk about. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Smith, I do have to draw you back to your original motion, which was in relation to the answer given by Senator Gallagher. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Senator Urquhart is 100 per cent correct, but it was such an important revelation that I thought I should indulge— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Important to you, Senator Smith, but not necessarily important to the Deputy President. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Of course, the other significant matter in question time today was a question that I asked on an issue that was actually canvassed yesterday in the Senate by coalition senators, and that issue is the appalling performance thus far of the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Stephen Jones. Normally in government if you made one mistake, that would be serious enough for a reprimand from the Prime Minister or a reprimand from the Treasurer. But, no, the Assistant Treasurer has made not one, not two but three mistakes. All we got from Senator Gallagher, who represents both the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer in the Senate, was a statement reflecting on her personal relationship with Mr Jones. I don't doubt that there's a long history there. But the critical point we were examining in question time today is whether or not the Assistant Treasurer has the character, has the integrity, has the professional skill to be responsible for—to have management and oversight over—the financial services portfolio. I think it's clear—the revelation that Senator McKim gave to this chamber last week makes it very, very clear—that the Assistant Treasurer does not have the character or the integrity to manage what is a very significant portfolio. It's worth reminding the chamber that a newspaper report in the Sydney Morning Herald noted, when talking about the Financial Accountability Regime Bill, that Mr Jones had said that there had been no sign-off on anything. There had been 'no deal', Mr Jones is quoted as saying in the Sydney Morning Herald. But last week Senator McKim, again, in the chamber, made it very clear. He said; 'There is absolutely no doubt that Minister Jones and I had an agreement, and any claim that there was no agreement is false.' That is a significant revelation in this place by Senator McKim about his dealings, his negotiations, with Stephen Jones. That is an unacceptable way in which the Assistant Treasurer has dealt with some very important legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the greatest bulk of bills that are passed through the Senate since we came back after the election have been Treasury and financial bills. Careful management, careful negotiations of these bills is central to the wellbeing of Australians and their families. And we have Senator McKim calling out the fact that the Assistant Treasurer cannot be trusted with his word on important matters. 15:12 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Well, this is a really disappointing decline into a pretty horrific personal attack on a member of the government who I think is doing a tremendous job. The idea that we have, in this chamber, an attack on the basis of accountability, on the basis of transparency and indeed, Senator Smith, on the basis of acting in good faith is I think pretty appalling. Our Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, has been fighting day and night for the same things we are all fighting for on this side of the chamber, the same things that keep us up at night: how to deal with a cost-of-living crisis in Australia. He has been fighting to do things like deliver cheaper child care, deliver cheaper medicines, deliver real action, increase wages, including through our secure-jobs bill. That is what our government is focused on. That is the work that keeps us up at night, and I know that is the work that our Assistant Treasurer is working on day in, day out. This attack comes from a government that had a history over nine years of dodging transparency, of dodging accountability, with a prime minister whose most famous legacy quote is, 'I don't hold a hose, mate'. That's the government Senator Smith served in. That is their record on accountability and transparency. So, it is pretty outrageous to come in here and not only smear and attack a member of the other place but do so on the basis of accountability, on the basis of transparency, on the basis of acting in good faith. I mean, I don't know how you keep a straight face through that one, honestly—and you can't. How do you keep a straight face through that one? You can't. The government is not focused on these ridiculous smears. We're focused on getting on with the job, of action on cost of living, of cheaper child care. On 1 January we will see child care get cheaper in this country, to make sure more mums and dads can get back to work. We're focused on cheaper medicines. These are real measures that will take the cost-of-living burden off Australian families. This is what people in our communities are talking about. These are the kinds of measures that Australians want to see. Most importantly, they want to see action on their wages. The previous government designed economic architecture to have wages deliberately low, and people want to see a shift away from that. They want to see us move away from that and fair enough and that is what we are doing as a government; that is what we are getting on with. So to come in here and make some kind of artificial argument about transparency and accountability, I think, it's pretty hard to do that and keep a straight face. We have just seen the government deliver a budget which not only fulfils our election commitments but contains key measures to address and tackle the cost of living in addition to what I've already spoken about—cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. We are progressively expanding paid parental leave to six months by 2026, another measure that will make a real difference to Australian families; building more affordable housing, including a new national housing accord to build more affordable and well-located homes for Australians; and, of course, getting wages moving again. I know Assistant Minister Jones, like every member of our government and every member of the Albanese Labor government cabinet, is working day in and day out to achieve these objectives. Because when we came to government we did so on a promise to the Australian people that we would take real action to address the cost-of-living crisis; that we would be, yes, a government which was more transparent, which was more accountable. Let's not forget that in the other place this week we expect the former Prime Minister will be the subject of a motion regarding his decision to swear himself into multiple ministries. I note Senator Smith said that the Assistant Treasurer should be reprimanded by the Prime Minister and Treasurer—I mean, ridiculous, because if he was a member of the former government, it would be the same person. It is just outrageous that those opposite had a Prime Minister take these decisions, do these things. Those opposite all sat idly by and then they come in here months later on this accountability and transparency attack, which I just don't know how they do with a straight face. They don't believe in it. They don't believe the words they are saying. 15:17 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It is a real pleasure to be able to make a contribution in relation to the government for vested interests and its latest foray into financial regulation. If you are a class action law firm or you are a union or you are a super fund, you are at the top of the list on the government for vested interests' priority list. If you are a punter, you go to the back of the queue, because this government is only interested in feathering the nests of vested interests. That is the log of claims that this minister, Mr Jones, has been working through since he assumed his role over six months ago. We saw over the last few days Mr Swan, who is the President of the Labor Party but also the head of the CBUS super fund, say that he was going to commit $500 million of the members' money to a housing accord, which Senator Gallagher said in Senate estimates she didn't even know the detail of. So you have a housing accord policy with no detail, no assurance to the trustees about how their money would be protected and you have the person wearing two hats in Mr Swan falling over himself to promise the member's money. That is, of course, the best example that I can think of the howling conflicts which sit at the very heart of this government for vested interests. But, of course, Senator Smith's contribution here is about Mr Jones. Mr Jones has already had a quadrella of failures in his attempt to regulate the financial markets. Last Friday we heard from Senator McKim, who had been done over by Mr Jones. He goes over to the other ministerial wing and does a deal which falls over pretty quickly and Mr Jones has, as a result of the deal falling over, killed his own financial regulation agenda, which is designed to improve the penalties which are applied to members of the financial sector who breach our laws. So that's fallen over and so has the compensation scheme of last resort, which Mr Jones promised at the last election. That is now on the never-never; we might not see that again. Then, of course, yesterday in this chamber, Mr Jones's key policy that he took to the election—the religious carve-out for super funds, which is a huge issue out there in the community and was the centrepiece of his policies—was excised by the government, was removed from the bill before the Senate. We've also been able to canvass Mr Jones's failure to regulate the crypto sector. Back on 22 August, Mr Jones said in a Treasury media release that he was about to release public consultation on token mapping: 'It will be released soon.' That was on 22 August. Meanwhile we've had the FTX collapse, with 30,000 Australian consumers exposed to FTX. And what do you hear from Jones? Nothing from Mr Jones. He has failed to protect consumers there because there are probably no vested interests going into his office asking him to do things. That takes me to the last point about Mr Jones's tremendous record here as the minister. His first act as minister was to remove transparency arrangements which would require the funds to show how much money they've sent off to a related party, be it a union or a bank or an insurance company or any related party. He has taken that away. That is his first priority; he comes into the job and says, 'I've got a great plan here; I'm going to take away the transparency that has been put in place because I don't want workers to see where their money is going.' That is his priority. That tells you all you need to know about this minister. In terms of that particular regulation: I know Senator Lambie has a disallowance motion tomorrow, and the chamber will be able to make its own judgement on Mr Jones's judgement that the Australian people, workers and members of super funds should not be allowed to see when their funds are sending their money off to the CFMMEU, the Australian Workers Union and all the other unions which benefit greatly from superannuation funds. It is a shocking tenure already for Mr Jones. He has fluffed the FAR bill, the religious carve-out is already dead and tomorrow he might in fact complete his trifecta and lose his super regs. 15:22 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I thank Senator Dean Smith for his question to Senator Gallagher, to the minister, about our very important Financial Accountability Regime package. This, indeed, is a package of reforms that I am very proud to support, and it's a package of reforms the government remains committed to passing. And we make absolutely no apologies for being a government that is willing to consult with the sector about this package of reforms. This is an incredibly important part of our financial architecture, and it's a part of our financial architecture that the previous government, the now opposition, completely walked away from. This package of reforms includes reforms to accountability for banks and financial services providers. It includes strong penalties. It includes a compensation scheme of last resort for victims of financial companies who refuse or can't pay determinations for compensation for victims of wrongdoing. Critically, it includes reforms to payday lending laws and consumer lease laws to get rid of predatory lending in our country, which just heaps debt onto vulnerable people. Again, we remain committed to passing this legislation. When it comes to financial architecture in this country that protects consumers, it is quite extraordinary that the opposition would come in here and try to claim any moral high ground whatsoever when it comes to this issue. This is an opposition that voted, I think it was 26 times, against the Hayne royal commission into the banking sector. These reforms that we are continuing to consult on actually come out of that royal commission. They also come out of the small amount credit contracts review, which highlighted the absolutely tragic consequences of predatory lending. But, of course, those opposite chose not to pass this package of reforms. They chose not to try to protect consumers. They chose not to fully implement the Hayne Royal Commission recommendations or the SAC recommendations. Instead, they've come in here and attempted to heap criticism on us for introducing this incredibly important legislation and for consulting widely on it. What we are doing is getting on with reforms that protect consumers in this country. What we are doing is getting on with implementing the Hayne Royal Commission recommendations in full. What we are doing is getting on with being a government that is restoring integrity to our political system and to our government. I do want to note the comments of Senator Dean Smith in his take-note speech. He directly called into doubt the integrity of the minister with his words. That was a completely unwarranted attack. I think it was an attack that was, quite frankly, beneath the standards of Senator Smith, who I work with on the Senate economics committee. I've generally found him to be a very collegiate and reasonable person as we do our work, work like considering this particular package of reforms. So I do have to say that I'm incredibly disappointed with the approach of Senator Smith in this chamber today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with introducing a package of reforms that go to the heart of protecting consumers in our country from financial wrongdoing, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with consulting widely on those reforms and taking feedback as feedback arises. There is nothing wrong with talking to the crossbenchers about the reforms and making sure that they're fit for a purpose and they do the job. Minister Jones is getting on with doing the job, delivering the financial architecture that our country needs, and he will continue to do that work. 15:27 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Australian businesses make billions of dollars worth of investment decisions everyday. To do this they need certainty, to do this they need consistency and to do this they need reliability in the economy and in the hands that steer it. That's why Senator Dean Smith's questions today are so important for the Australian economy. Today in a question by Senator Smith we heard the challenge that the Assistant Treasurer's actions have caused all this. I don't think it was assessing his merits or his integrity. It was just the potential damage that inconsistency can cause to the economy. I note that the Assistant Treasurer is the member for Whitlam. I note that in just three days some of those opposite will be celebrating 50 years since Mr Whitlam took office. Well, in '72 it was potentially time, and in '22 the minister's time is potentially up. We've had the three strikes. We've had problems in all the areas we spoke about earlier, and business needs better. The economy needs better. Australian households need better. I noted that in the response by Minister Gallagher she said that the Assistant Treasurer was an outstanding person. There is no question of that. We are not questioning his personality. We are not testing his character. He may be the Keanu Reeves of this parliament for all I know. I haven't met him. He may pet dogs and work at a pound and look after cats. No one is questioning his personality, merely his competency and his ability to see things through. I'll get back to the point: business needs confidence in the economy so that when the government shakes a hand, when a government nods a head, when a government says yes, they get a deal that sticks. When we go into a business case, when we've sat in a boardroom—and I have sat there trying to diversify a business to make it more resilient to look to the future—when we're looking at billions of dollars worth of investment we look at millions of dollars of consultants and millions of dollars of man-hours. We look at tens of people looking to make this investment. Now what have we got? We've got uncertainty. We have an Assistant Treasurer who can change his mind on regulation and can say stuff that you may rely on that is incorrect. We have interest rates going up. We have the cost of living going through the roof. The economy is not stable at the moment, and inconsistency in messaging from the government have hurt it. We heard from Senator Bragg some of the areas where there's been a flip-flop or a change. We heard about cryptocurrency and getting involved in regulation around that. There was an article today about a couple losing $50,000 in superannuation for a lack of regulation in the cryptocurrency space. That lack of certainty is going to hurt them personally. It's going to hit budgets all across Australia when they do that. We heard about the super disclosure laws being wound back. People deserve to know. Every time they do this, they think a union does that and the Labor Party does that. People need consistency. They need to know that is not the case. We talked about bank penalties being wound back. What is that about? It's like an episode of Rake. Was the shadow minister scared the banks were going to close his bank accounts and he would have to go to 'Parliamentary Friends of Breakfast' to get a meal around here? We flipped back on the bank episode here. All these things are not good. They are not consistent and they do not give confidence to the economy. That is before we even get to mums and dads—their consistency, their certainty. They went into an election hearing $275 worth of savings, and that has evaporated. They are doing their budgets, and we have had eight or nine interest rate rises since this government was elected. The cash rate is now more than eight times higher than when this government was elected. There is no consistency. There is no steady hand. We deserve better. The Australian people deserve better. The Assistant Treasurer just needs to get it right. If he doesn't go, he needs to get it right, because the people deserve that. Question agreed to. Defence Personnel 38 15:32 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to defence personnel. At the start of this month the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, gave a group of special forces officers 28 days to explain why their service should be still considered distinguished and worthy of the medal they were awarded for their achievements within the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan. The majority of these officers received their awards for their leadership in action on foreign ground, facing the enemy, leading their men in combat. We have only heard about this because many of these officers have reached out, needing help to bring this to the public's attention. The CDF himself has apparently asked some of these men to voluntarily hand back their awards. If they don't, he's said he will seek a mechanism to do so through the Governor-General, through the force of threat. This is the same Chief of the Defence Force who, two years ago, off the back of the Brereton report, called to remove the Meritorious Unit Citation from every single special forces person, including their support staff. The Chief of the Defence Force is making these decisions and taking actions while he happily continues to wear his own Distinguished Service Cross. His citation reads that it was awarded 'for distinguished command and leadership in action as Commander Joint Task Force 633', when he was the general responsible for all Australian troops deployed to the Middle East, including Afghanistan—sitting comfortably in his office outside Dubai for the majority of those two years, mind you. I tell you what, mate, it's time to cough up your own award first, buddy. How about you start showing some leadership? If I could see some leadership from you—just a little bit—before you're just about gone and disposed of. Stop passing the buck down here. Stop passing it down to the diggers, mate. Show some leadership. Pass yours in first. Let's see what you've got. This was explained to me by one of the special forces officer friends as the exact command responsibility the Chief of the Defence Force is citing as a reason why the other, lower-ranking special forces officers should hand back their awards. The Chief of the Defence Force has lost the support of the majority of the military—perhaps not so much his little group of senior officers that still surround him, waiting for their day of promotion, and all the brass up in his headquarters, but he has lost the support of most of the military. That is where we're at today. There is no support from junior ranks whatsoever. These are the ones that are doing the hard yards on the ground, the ones actually out on missions, winning their awards in action, in combat. That's who they are. The discharge rates from the ADF are at an all-time high. Don't even talk to me about retention rates—they're finished. Recruitment is struggling at best. Why would anybody want to join any organisation where this type of treatment can go unchecked against those who are subordinate in rank and restricted through strict policies of being unable to reach out of the system otherwise? I say enough is enough. We are in Australia, where we abide by the rule of law and give people a fair go. We saw a spike in veteran suicide and damage to our strategic reputation under the same man who has been given an extended tenure for two years. What planet is Minister Richard Marles living on? That's your first and last mistake, I reckon, Minister. I sincerely do. Any respect you hoped to get out of this is already gone, Minister Marles. You're finished—gone. The CDF has proven that these decisions should not be left to him, and I am calling for his actions to be immediately brought before the Senate committee on defence and foreign affairs in order to appropriately ensure the sensitive and strategic nature of these issues is properly and publicly met. One of the reasons we have a royal commission into the suicides going on is because of that leadership. He has been part of that leadership for many years, yet none of you in here, the majors on either side, have had the guts to dispose of him. We have some serious issues going on in our military. Watch the royal commission. It's in front of our faces. When we have troops out there and most of them have their morale down and out, that puts a strain on our national security. That should be a red-hot alert for all of us in here. It is time for a leadership change in the military. Before the royal commission tells you, I will: Angus Campbell has to go. Question agreed to. Great Barrier Reef 39 15:37 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Whish-Wilson, there are 30 seconds remaining. Do you wish to take note? 15:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I won't pass up 30 seconds! I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Great Barrier Reef. I wish to take note of how disappointed I was that I didn't get a response from Senator Wong on whether the government will actually oppose a UNESCO World Heritage in Danger listing and the process that would lead to that. I sincerely hope that the government accepts the recommendation, that we put the politics—10 years of shameful politics—behind us and that we work together to secure the future of the reef, not just for future Australian generations but for all generations. I note that Senator Green, the envoy, is in the Senate chamber today, and I hope she pays attention to what I just said. Question agreed to. NOTICES 39 NOTICES Presentation 39 Postponement 43 BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 43 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senator McCarthy be granted leave of absence for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 43 NOTICES Postponement 43 15:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Madam Acting Deputy President, I just want to make a correction— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not 'Madam Acting Deputy President'. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U No. Madam President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Actually I'm just 'President'. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U President, I would just like to correct something. There was a postponement motion being lodged in the name of Senator Shoebridge. It was postponed until Thursday, but actually it should be postponed until tomorrow. I'd like that corrected. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I'm advised that that is what we did. COMMITTEES 44 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 44 Reference 44 15:40 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I acknowledge the presence of Chanel Contos in the chamber today. I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2023: Current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) inconsistencies in consent laws across different jurisdictions; (b) the operation of consent laws in each jurisdiction; (c) any benefits of national harmonisation; (d) how consent laws impact survivor experience of the justice system; (e) the efficacy of jury directions about consent; (f) the impact of consent laws on consent education; (g) the findings of any relevant state or territory law reform commission review or other inquiry; and (h) any other relevant matters. 15:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The 10000 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 The Greens strongly support this inquiry, which will complement the work plan to strengthen criminal justice responses to sexual assault which was recently endorsed by the Meeting of Attorneys-General. This is critical work. I too would like to acknowledge and thank Chanel Contos, who's in the back of the chamber right now, and also the work and presence of Saxon Mullins, Bri Lee, Nina Funnell, Grace Tame and so many others who have pushed for strong, clear and harmonised laws on consent and consent education for so long. These courageous women have consistently pushed for laws and consent education to be informed by the lived experience of sexual assault victims-survivors. This inquiry provides an important opportunity to achieve that. With so many states and territories legislating different types of consent, it is important that we harmonise upwards. I was pleased to see that the Queensland Labor government belatedly committed to an affirmative consent model after two years of missing that opportunity. I hope that all other states will follow suit. I thank Senator Green for proposing this inquiry. Question agreed to. BILLS 44 BILLS COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 44

COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022

First Reading 44 15:42 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to prevent discrimination in relation to COVID-19 vaccination status, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator HANSON BK6 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 44 15:43 Senator BK6 Queensland HANSON (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator HANSON BK6 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The documen t was unavailable at the time of publishing. Senator HANSON BK6 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 45 DOCUMENTS Infrastructure 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 15:44 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 1 pm on Thursday, 1 December 2022, the following documents: (a) all correspondence from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to state and territory infrastructure and transport ministers regarding funding decisions in the October 2022-23 Budget for infrastructure projects in each respective jurisdiction; (b) all correspondence received by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government from state and territory infrastructure and transport ministers in response to correspondence in paragraph (a); and (c) copies of the tables prepared by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts for each state and territory, outlining projects under the Infrastructure Investment Program—Australian Government committed projects as at October Budget 2022-23. Question agreed to. Australian Packaging Covenant 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 15:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move general business notice of motion No. 103, relating to attacking plastic pollution: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on 1 December 2022, the following documents: (a) any review conducted in 2022 of the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) National Packaging Targets 2025, including any draft document provided to the Minister or the Department in respect of same, or any document that pertains to any update of the collective impact report released in November 2021; and (b) any briefing or advice prepared for the Minister in 2022 that relates to updating the APCO 2025 targets since the 2021 collective impact report. (2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166. Question agreed to. Australian Packaging Covenant 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 15:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move general business notice of motion No. 104, relating to holding big business to account: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on 1 December 2022, the following documents: (a) any correspondence or communication since 18 November 2021 between the Minister or Department and Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) in relation to the 2025 national packaging targets; and (b) the list of stakeholders that APCO has contacted in the course of its 2022 review or intends to contact. (2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 45 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Voting Age 45 15:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: That the voting age in Australia be lowered to 16. 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. 15:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Australia led the world in letting women vote, and now our country should lead the world in letting young people aged 16 and 17 vote. Last week the New Zealand Supreme Court found that it was discriminatory and a breach of human rights to deny 16- and 17-year-olds the right and the opportunity to vote. Now, Australia doesn't have a national bill of rights, something that the Greens would like us to have, but the argument is the same: people should have a say in decisions that affect them. Young people are more politically aware than ever before, and they will be directly disadvantaged by—amongst other things—climate change, cost-of-living pressures, the cost of getting an education, responses to sexual assault, gender inequality and growing housing unaffordability. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds make a significant contribution to Australian society. They can work. They can drive. They can pay taxes. They are carers. They are students. They are renters. At 17 they can fight in wars. Yet currently they are denied a say in who represents them and how their tax dollars are spent. Young people inherit a planet and an economy impacted by decisions that they have no say in. Detractors often say, 'Kids don't even understand politics.' But young people have found ways to work outside the electoral system to call for the changes needed to protect their futures: from the schools' strikes for climate; legal action on whether the environment minister owes kids a duty of care; young women signing petitions and meeting with politicians, crying out for decent consent education to drive down the rates of sexual assault amongst their peers; to the young man I met last weekend, Ned Heaton, who at age 11 started a campaign to end plastic toothbrushes and replace them with bamboo toothbrushes—he's now 15 and has written a book, a great Christmas gift for kids who love oceans and nature—and, globally, young women of colour leading the debate about climate action. Young people are already shaping the future in so many ways, and they deserve the right to vote from age 16. Young people deserve more of a say in politics. It's going to take more than just lowering the voting age. We need more young people elected to parliament to directly represent their interests and concerns. Until that happens, we here have a lot of work to do to meaningfully listen to and represent the voices of young people. We need to ensure that there's meaningful consultation with young people—and we welcome future contributions from the new Youth Steering Committee. We need to make parliament a safe and respectful place in which young people actually aspire to work. Earlier this year, Plan International Australia found that 72 per cent of young women do not feel that politics is an equal or inclusive space for them. We know from experiences in other countries that lowering the voting age increases political engagement amongst young people, and that increased commitment stays with them throughout their life. It is good for democracy. Other countries allow people under the age of 18 to vote—Brazil, Cuba, Austria, Malta and Scotland. And, in the wake of last week's court decision, New Zealand will introduce laws to lower the voting age. Australia should follow their lead. Young people get it. They just don't get a say. Let's change that. 15:50 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland To begin with, I want to pay tribute to the many members of the Young Liberals, the Young Nationals and, in my home state, the Young Liberal Nationals for the work they do across Australia and across Queensland in standing up for freedom and standing up against some of the errant nonsense that you hear on the Left side of politics. I commend those young people from the centre-right who, in the recent student union elections, went down in a ball of flames but took the fight to the broad Left on campuses across Queensland and had to put up with buckets of bile and nastiness from those supporting the Greens, those supporting the Socialist Alliance and those supporting the left-wing tickets across Queensland. What they put up with on a daily basis is to be commended, and I speak as someone who reached the dizzying heights of chairman of the Sunshine Coast Young Liberals and president of the Griffith University Liberal Club. Notwithstanding the strong advocacy for issues impacting across Queensland, it is the view of the youth movements of political parties across Australia who are on the centre-right of politics, on the freedom side of politics, that the voting age should stay as it is, at 18. That is the position of the coalition and the opposition in this chamber. We believe 18 is the appropriate age at which the line should be drawn as to whether people can or should vote. That has been long-accepted practice and we don't see the need to change that. But, if we are talking about how we can enhance and protect our democracy, there are certain things we should be looking at and we should draw attention to—like Labor's plans to introduce a financial gerrymander at a federal level. Labor plans to bring in a financial gerrymander to try and lock themselves into power. What Labor are up to is they want to bring in the Queensland model. For those who are listening at home and don't know what the Queensland model is, it's very simple: it's limiting the Liberal National Party, under a spending cap, to $15 million and the Labor Party to $15 million. You would think, 'That's pretty fair.' But, under Labor's model, every union in Queensland can also spend up to $10 million. So, on one side of the ledger, on the centre-right, the Liberal National Party, led by David Crisafulli—the next Premier of Queensland, not withstanding the financial gerrymander!—is capped at $15 million, but on the left side you've got the Labor Party on $15 million and, I think, 26 registered trade unions in Queensland—I'm happy to be corrected on that number—that can spend up to $260 million on a state election. So, effectively, you've got $15 million against $275 million. So there is no spending cap in Queensland. It is a financial gerrymander designed to keep the Liberal National Party out of power. What Labor are proposing at the federal level is to bring in a similar cap on expenditure. So the political parties will all be capped, but the unions won't be. The unions are the campaign wing of the Labor Party; we know the Labor Party is defunct at an organisation level on the ground and is run by the unions. There's nothing wrong with that; the Labor Party was formed out of the union movement. But if we're talking about fairness in politics and ensuring that we have a democracy that allows all voices to be heard, then we should ensure that all voices have the same means and the same ability in which to prosecute arguments before the voters at each election. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Queensland. Unfortunately, that is not what Labor are proposing at a federal level. They are proposing to bring in this financial gerrymander that will lock out so many people from participating in the democratic process so they can entrench themselves into power. Part of this plan—we can see this—is the IR bills that are before parliament, this week and last week. It is the Labor Party ensuring that their union bosses are paid back, and they will make sure that the union bosses will put money into the Labor Party re-election when it comes. But we will win, because we are on the right side of politics. (Time expired) 15:55 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Labor government supports the inclusion of young people in government decision-making, and we support the enfranchisement of all Australians, but we're not here today to rush into changing the fundamentals of our voting system without proper consultation. I have to say that just last week we saw the first advisory council of some 15 young Australians and invited them to Canberra to engage with government to have a say on issues that matter to them. That was via the Youth Steering Committee, and I saw much defunding and neglect of that inclusion under the last government. Last week and this week, Dr Anne Aly has been working with these young people to drive the development of our government's new youth engagement model. This is about creating meaningful opportunities for young Australians to have a say on government policies and programs. This is a model being developed by young people for young people. It brings together a diverse range of life experiences to this role. It brings together young people from a really diverse variety of backgrounds to have a say on a very wide variety of issues. When it comes to the issues confronting young people in Australia today, we know that young Australians are uniquely placed to tell us about the problems they face and to shape the solutions that actually work for them. Young people in Australia are more than 15 per cent of our population, and we're not here to paint them with one brush of being young or being disengaged or only caring about one issue. Labor is committed to engaging with young people and learning about their issues and stories and their ideas for our nation. As a government, we want to not only work for Australia's young people but also work with them. This is a far more effective model from our point of view. The committee sees some 15 young people, including from regional, rural and remote areas. We had a massive commitment from young people around Australia expressing their interest in participating. We now have participating young people from LGBTQI+ communities, First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, diverse religious backgrounds along with young Australians with lived experience of disability, caring responsibilities and/or mental health issues. They all have a place on this advisory committee. From this you can see our commitment to Australia's young people. We had more than 1,200 applications from people aged 12 to 25 years old. So we know that young Australians are interested in our nation's political affairs and are interested in engaging in the decisions that impact them. In this context, I certainly recognise that for many it includes a desire to pursue electoral enfranchisement. So, via this committee, we do hope that we will be able to engage with young people about their expectations for electoral enfranchisement. The Labor Party has led key electoral reforms in Australia, consulting with Australians very widely about how we gain better inclusion and participation from across our political spectrum. Electoral reform needs to be carefully considered and it needs to be addressed through multipartisan forums, such as parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I am also committed to seeing the youth advisory committee as well as young people from right around Australia participating in these processes. In this context, we can see that the Labor Party is committed to meaningful electoral reforms. We were, for example, the first party to introduce funding and disclosure schemes in early 1980s. Labor is absolutely committed to supporting young people in our political system— (Time expired) 16:00 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This is my message to our 16- and 17-year-old Australians. You can okay boomer me as much as you want. I'll happily cop it. Yet, as someone who is 67 and grey haired, I want to let you in on a little life secret. The Greens over here want you to think voting makes you an adult. It's a trap. It's something that no one here has really mentioned, but I remember that when I was your age you really don't want to be an adult yet. Trust me, it kind of sucks and it's hard. The Greens are adults. Listening to their speeches, do they seem like happy people? Adults have lots of bills: car rego bills, electricity bills, water bills, gas bills, car insurance bills, private health bills, dental bills, phone bills and more. You might even have to start paying for your own Netflix. Then you have to go to work everyday, on repeat, daily, for 40 years until you retire or die. It's 9 am to 5 pm—at least!—in an office. It's up early before the sun rises if you're a tradie. Don't forget to do all your laundry in between as well. Then, if you work really hard and get a good job, the government will start stealing 33 cents out of every dollar you earn and waste it on something. These are just some of the responsibilities that come with being an adult. As fun as I'm sure all this sounds, there's much more. These are just some of the responsibilities that come with voting. They will all come more quickly than you think, and you will be voting sooner than you realise. Until then, just focus on finishing school or choosing a trade. Don't listen to the people saying that you need to protest or the world will end. It won't. For decades we've been told the lie that the world will end in five years or maybe 10 years. Hang out with your friends. Just have fun and practise to get your P-plates. You'll soon have plenty of time to protest and vote and do all the boring stuff that comes with being an adult. It will be sooner than you think—much sooner than you think. 16:02 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia That's one way to look at it, Senator Roberts, but thank you for your contribution. As a 27-year-old and as the youngest member of the 47th parliament, my commitment to empowering the voices of young Australians is unquestionable. It is important that young people understand the power of their democratic right to vote in a country like Australia, when there are so many examples around the world where this right has been diminished. The assurance that the value of one person's vote is no different to that of another is something we cannot take for granted. Speaking to fellow young people in Western Australia, I am always inspired by their passion for a better world. At the election in May this year, they knew there had to be a change to safeguard their future, and a change is what they got. Their voices are being heard by this government. Since being elected, we took immediate action on climate change, something young people are so passionate about and have been calling for for years. This restored our reputation on the world stage. We've made TAFE more accessible and we've campaigned for wage increases and job security, so young people in our country can confidently support themselves whilst they're studying or saving for their first home or to travel the globe. These are real changes that young people need, and we are delivering. The Albanese Labor government is a government young people can be certain has their back, now and always, unlike what they have known for most of their lives under those on the other side. We have an incredible Minister for Youth in Dr Anne Aly, who is working tirelessly to engage with young people, for young people. I will always work in this place to increase enfranchisement, education and information about electoral matters so that young people understand the importance of our democracy. With this in mind, now is not the time to lower the voting age without the proper consideration of Australia's electoral landscape. But it is time to consider practical ways of engaging with our youth and young people, to educate, empower and promote the democratic rights and freedoms we have as Australians. Some of these ideas are already in place and practiced, while others are less frequent but just as important. I'd like to see more educational school visits, discussing with students their curriculum of humanities and social sciences, and how the theory they learn has practical implications on parliamentary operations, processes and procedures. I'd like to see more young people invited to round tables about matters of importance to them. This will enable us to listen—to truly listen—to the challenges that are unique to our nation's youth and to brainstorm solutions constructively. It would also allow them to contribute towards the decision-making processes of legislation that will impact on their lives in the years to come. I would like to see more invitations extended to young people to visit parliaments across our states and territories, or to shadow their member of parliament for a day or a week to understand and witness the hectic schedules of parliamentarians and to appreciate the behind-the-scenes work that we do. I would also like to see more young people involved in youth organisations, university clubs and Young Labor, for the people in my home state of Western Australia, which welcome young people of all ages and ensure they understand the political system before a ballot paper is shoved in their faces and they're asked to vote. I believe in making informed decisions and being well-versed when casting my vote to elect a government that shares my values and which will implement policies for the greater good of all Australians—a government that is inclusive, progressive, responsible and compassionate. Labor has always been the party of meaningful electoral reform which creates a transparent and accessible electoral system. Future discussions about this issue in the context of Australia's democracy is something we are open to. But as our electoral system exists today, young Australians are being represented in this parliament. 16:07 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia What we have heard in the debate so far is opposition to 16- and 17-year-olds getting the right to vote from the Liberal Party, and lukewarm noncommitment from the ALP. I would ask all members who have contributed to this debate, who have decided to give their view on this issue, to engage in a bit of a thought experiment. Imagine if you were being asked a really important question about your life, and you were not actually allowed to answer. In fact, imagine that you were legally prevented from answering such a question while other people in another place had a say and were encouraged to use that to make a decision for you—in order to make a choice on your behalf. And imagine all of this being done on the assumption that you cannot make a decision for yourself—that you aren't fit to give your view or to speak your opinion. Doesn't this sound awful? Doesn't it sound even discriminatory? I think the people in this room would absolutely hate it. This is the reality, when it comes to government, for every person who has yet to turn 18. Don't we think it's unfair that if a young person is looking at 114 new coal and gas projects when people and communities are facing the destruction of climate events, and they want to protest about it and oppose it but they're not allowed to have a say in whether or not those projects go ahead or whether or not those governments are re-elected? Don't we think it's unfair that 16- and 17-year-olds are planning their futures and choosing universities, with the weight of tens of thousands of dollars in debt on their shoulders in education fees, when they should and could have had the ability to have a say at the last election about whether or not those policies should continue and whether university should once again be made free? Well, the Greens believe in empowering everyone to be involved in decisions that impact them. Decreasing the voting age to 16 will have an enormous impact and be a profound step towards a more inclusive, proactive, working democracy. I'm proud to be part of a team that will push for this and see it done. It is not fair to exclude 16- and 17-year-olds from the democratic system—not at all. It is time to begin fixing the disparities in the system by lowering the voting age to 16. 16:10 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I welcome this motion moved by my colleague Senator McKim and support the lowering of the voting age to 16. The law of this land is our law. It's the oldest law on the planet. First Nations people in this country are the oldest continuing living culture on Earth. Our society ensured that we have equality—meaning that our young people were just as important as our old people. At the age of 16 we have many responsibilities as First Nations people. We have responsibilities to our siblings. We have responsibilities to our old people. We have responsibilities to our cousins, our brothers and our sisters. And a lot of our people are having babies at 16; I was 17. A lot of our young people are paying taxes. A lot of our young people don't get a say at all. Victoria has already acknowledged the cultural authority of our young people in its treaty process by including all First Nations people over the age of 16 on the roll. This sets a precedent for the inclusion of our young people in the decisions that impact our people. Young First Nations people are the key to our survival. It's not our future; it's their future. And we must do the right thing by giving them a voice on their journey towards their future. (Time expired) 16:12 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Citizenship requires rights, identity and participation, and all these have been eroded over time in this country by partisan politicking. We know that membership of the major parties is on the decline, and the trend is evident in many Liberal democracies. Well, here's an opportunity for them. Get onboard with lowering the voting age and start listening to young people and taking them seriously. You never know: they might just join one of your parties. The Greens have long advocated for lowering the voting age to 16 and have introduced legislation at federal, state and territory levels to make this a reality. The simple act of lowering the voting age would demonstrate a strong commitment to young people of this country, our next generation. It is their future that is at stake, after all. Young people across this country have been taking action for years now, telling politicians that we are in a climate emergency. The least the parliament can do, if it's not going to listen and take swift, meaningful action to transition this country to net zero, is to actually give those young people the right to vote and vote you out of here. The core principle of representative democracy is that, through democratic participation, representatives can draw on the expertise, knowledge and opinions of their constituents when forming policy and making decisions. Young constituents have very valuable knowledge, interests and experience that should actually be recognised. Those who argue against lowering the voting age claim that 16- and 17-year-olds are closer to children than to adults in their ability to reason and make sound decisions—and I've certainly seen that in my time here! Young people do not lack the political knowledge, cognitive capacity, good judgement and maturity that's needed to engage in their democracy. In fact, they have all those things. Many of our young people need the right to vote, and we should be giving it to them. (Time expired) 16:14 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland More countries around the world are recognising the importance of providing young people with the right to vote. A few days ago, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled that the voting age being set to 18 was discriminatory. I hope that the conversations that are now happening in New Zealand will also renew debate in this country regarding our voting rules. Young people are informed, thoughtful and, increasingly, politically engaged. Our national curriculum includes comprehensive civics and citizenship education, which all of our young people have completed by year 10. They should also have the right to participate actively in our electoral process. Instead, they are being actively excluded from participating in decisions about their own futures, the outcome of which may not even be seen by some older Australians—only by those young Australians who didn't make them. The Greens have supported lowering the voting age for many years, with my Senate colleague Jordon Steele-John introducing a bill in 2018. At 16, young people can work, pay taxes, have children and make medical decisions about their bodies. The ability for young people to be charged as adults and be subject to imprisonment in adult facilities demonstrates the disconnect between their responsibilities and the lack of opportunities to vote. Ignoring this suite of responsibilities whilst refusing to allow young people the opportunity to contribute and to participate in the electoral process, actively undermines the rights of young people in this country. Young people are currently facing a cost-of-living crisis and a rental market that's unaffordable, and they're going to be the ones who are most impacted by the climate crisis. Young people are more than capable of voting on issues that matter to them. They care deeply about these issues and need to be involved in decisions relating to their futures. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The time for this discussion has expired. Workplace Relations 50 16:16 T e5x he ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ) (): The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Cash: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese Labor Government's flawed industrial relations policies, especially the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, giving the militant CFMMEU the green light to intimidatory, inflationary and productivity sapping behaviour across the building and construction industry. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I understand 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 ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As we all know, life is full of great ironies. I have to say that one of the ironies that will soon become apparent later today is that in the same week that the Australian parliament is setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Albanese government will formally hand the construction industry over to the most militant union in Australia, with the formal abolition of the ABCC. That is right—it's one of life's great ironies. There will be this handstand today and there'll be a press conference tonight. Mr Albanese will say, 'My government has put in place the National Anti-Corruption Commission.' But, at the same time, he will conveniently forget to tell Australians that within about 48 hours his government will also abolish the building industry watchdog and, again, officially hand the building sector in Australia over to John Setka—he's rubbing his hands together, and I've got a bit to say about him shortly—and the most militant union in Australia. But it's not really ironic—I say that tongue in cheek. Why is it not ironic? That's because one only has to look at the amount of money that the Australian Labor Party has received from the most militant union in Australia and the MUA over the past 20 years. One might ask, 'How much money is that?' Let's have a look: $16.3 million has gone directly from the most militant union in Australia and the MUA into the Australian Labor Party's coffers. So it should not come as a surprise, colleagues, when I say that the CFMMEU was one of Labor's biggest financial donors in 2020-2021. It provided them with almost $1 million in payments. Total union funds to the Australian Labor Party, headed up at this point in time by Prime Minister Albanese, for the financial years 2018 through to 2020 was $19,305,806. So, again, it is a little ironic that with a vote this afternoon the Labor Party establishes a National Anti-Corruption Commission. We won't talk about the fact that officials from registered organisations are exempt from certain parts, because that would be union officials. But, at the same time, the irony is that they will shortly abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and hand the building and construction industry over to the most militant union in Australia. Why is this an issue? Well, let's have a look at what CFMMEU Victorian secretary John Setka said recently, as reported. He said he was actually—you'll be unsurprised, colleagues—'impressed' by Tony Burke's move to scrap the ABCC and the Building Code. And in a letter to members as reported on 28 October 2022 he said: Without going the early crow, I'm hoping that this government is going to be different (from the Rudd-Gillard governments) and from what Our next EBA negotiations are now not going to be restricted to shit clauses and we will have the power to go after the non-union sites. I give credit to Mr Setka—and it's not often that I do—because at least Mr Setka has called out the blindingly obvious: 'thank you very much', from John Setka of the CFMMEU to Mr Albanese, Mr Burke and those who give money directly to the Labor Party's coffers. But what's of more concern is this. When it comes to handing the building industry over to the most militant union in Australia, let's just remind ourselves of why it is so dangerous for women. Those on the other side will stand up and say they have the best interests of women in Australia at heart with all their policies. Well, I have to say: again, one of life's ironies, given that the lawless activities of John Setka's CFMMEU include alleged threats to kill, rape and sexually assault women. A CFMMEU official jailed for assault once told a female inspector she was an effing S-L-U-T, asking her whether she had brought kneepads, as 'You are going to be sucking on these effing dogs all day.' A second CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. In the last call, logged at 11.23 pm, one caller said, 'You are an effing rat.' Another caller said, 'Me and my seven mates are going to come and eff you.' But guess what? None of that actually matters, because the money has flowed from the most militant union into the ALP's coffers to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. It's time now to pay the paymaster, and that is exactly what Mr Albanese is doing. 16:22 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Well, isn't it interesting? Here we have the Liberal Party, the LNP, talking about donations. But of course what they don't talk about is Gerry Hanssen, who has given at least $175,000 in donations to the Liberal Party since 2014—and this is a great person who's standing by women's rights! Marianka Heumann, a 27-year-old German backpacker, fell to her death on a Hanssen worksite in October 2016. Hanssen was fined $60,000 for health and safety violations. There have been multiple media reports about allegations of Hanssen Pty Ltd being involved in sham contracting and underpayments to workers. But where was the ABCC? They were nowhere to be found, because that would have meant that you had to go after one of the Liberal Party donors. Heaven forbid if that had happened! Let's look at what's been happening with regard to the ABCC. And don't worry about what I've got to say. Let's start talking about what a number of judges have to say, because it's very enlightening. Justice North in 2017-18 blasted the ABCC for prosecuting two CFMMEU officials for having a cup of tea with a mate. Get that: 'teagate'! They just started spending tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of dollars on someone having a cup of tea! The judge called it a 'minuscule, insignificant affair'. He also said: This is all external forces that are beating up what's just a really ordinary situation that amounts to virtually nothing. And: For goodness sake, I don't know what this inspectorate is doing. He went on to say that 'when the ABCC uses public resources to bring the bar down to this level it really calls into question the exercise of the discretion to proceed'. The fact is, there are organisations—and so there should be—to hold employers, and everybody else, to account on what happens on building sites, workplaces, companies, corporations and this parliament. That's one of the things that's really important. We didn't see a positive duty-of-care support to prevent sexual harassment from Respect@Work from the opposition, because the coalition didn't want to support that. They didn't want to support that. Of course they didn't want to support it, because they're not about supporting people. They're about supporting people like Gerry Hanssen. They did not want to support industrial manslaughter laws when 154 construction workers died between 2016 and 2020, because that would be holding people like Gerry Hanssen, those sorts of people, to account. They don't want to do that. That's just too difficult. Justice Kerr, slamming the ABCC in 2021, described a case of the ABCC over-egging its case, being a battleship in full steam which had difficulty turning and conducting proceedings as a blood sport. That's how a judge— Justice Kerr—described the ABCC's approach in 2021. But don't worry! There are some even more recent cases. In 2022 Justice Katzman criticised the ABCC for misrepresentation of evidence and filing court proceedings that were unnecessarily inflammatory. Then you go to the ABCC spending $488,000 pursuing Lendlease over Eureka flags. Then you go to $495,000 unsuccessfully pursuing a union because they demanded a women's toilet on a work site. You've got the cup of tea, you've got toilet-gate, you've got tea-gate and you've got flag-gate. They're spending a pile of money which judge after judge has said is inappropriate and immaterial. This does not actually turn around. But don't worry! They want to tell us that this is all about productivity. The opposition tells us this is all about productivity. Let's look at the actual productivity in the construction industry. You won't be surprised that, during the period the ABCC has been in existence—labour productivity was down 2.4 per cent in 2017-18. Maybe they will get their act together and it will improve! Labour productivity was down 2.6 per cent in 2018-19. Maybe they will reach a crescendo of good productivity! In 2019-20 it went down another 2.6 per cent. Outside the time when the ABCC has been there, productivity has been improving because companies have been improving their arrangements, improving their skills and improving their performance rather than turning around and beating the drum on behalf of the government. 16:27 Senator HENDER ZN4 Victoria SON () (): There are giants in politics, and one of those giants was former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke. If he were alive today he would be disgusted. He would be disgusted that this Labor government, led by the most extreme left-wing Prime Minister in living memory, is pushing through some of the most extreme IR laws, which will send our country backwards, cost thousands of jobs and put our small and medium-sized businesses at the mercy of unscrupulous unions. He would be disgusted that this nation is now run by the unions because that is exactly what is happening here. He would be disgusted that this Labor government was not putting the interests of Australians first. In 1983 he forged the historic accord between Labor and the ACTU in collaboration with business. He kept the unions at bay, in stark contrast to this Labor government, which, despite the gravest of concerns being raised by every employer group in the country, is determined to serve their paymasters at any cost. If Labor's extreme changes, which force pattern bargaining onto a large part of the economy, were in the best interests of Australia, Anthony Albanese would not have kept this dirty, rotten plan— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Henderson, would you mind taking your seat for a moment. I would like to remind senators that senators should be heard in silence and it is disorderly to keep interjecting. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 If Labor's extreme changes, which force pattern bargaining onto a large part of the economy, were in the best interests of Australia, Mr Albanese would not have kept this dirty, rotten plan a secret before the election. The abolition of the ABCC is another step into the Dark Ages, demonstrating that the unions are running the show. In the case of the abolition of the ABCC, it's all about propping up the CFMMEU. Bob Hawke had the guts to deregister the rogue BLF. In 2016 he said: The unions need to clean up their act and get their house in order. It just is appalling. He said: … I wouldn't tolerate it. You know what I did with the Builders Labourers Federation—I would throw them out. As we've heard from Senator Cash, things have just got worse. The ALP is receiving, on average, nearly a million dollars a year in donations from the CFMMEU and the MUA, and that's been the case over the past two decades. The abolition of the ABCC is nothing more than payback. Total union funds to the ALP since the 2018-20 financial year are almost $20 million. The fact of the matter is that Mr Albanese is too weak to stand up to John Setka and the CFMMEU and he's already given in to this demand. What else is next? Labor is turning a blind eye to the findings from royal commissions and countless rulings from the courts, which have highlighted the lawlessness and intimidation of the unions and the need for strong workplace regulations. Labor is happy to hand the keys to the front gates and lunchrooms at building sites back to the CFMMEU. It is an absolute disgrace. It is a scandal. It is a scandal that officials from registered organisations, of course including union officials, are exempt from the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's a scandal that, despite the appalling treatment of women on building sites, the Labor government is working hand in glove with this union. Let me remind all senators here today that the High Court has found that the CFMMEU was a serial offender, which engages in whatever action and makes whatever threats it wishes without regard to the law. It has contravened the laws on approximately 150 occasions. It was well resourced. These fines are just the cost of doing business. The lawlessness on building sites when the CFMMEU were in charge was frightening. The ABCC did so much important work to make sure that the interests of all Australians came first. It is an absolute disgrace that this Labor government hasn't got the guts to stand up to the lawlessness of the likes of the CFMMEU—unlike one of the giants of the Labor Party, Bob Hawke. As I said, he would be rolling in his grave if he could see how this Labor government has diminished the best interests of all Australians. 16:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I stand here proudly to reaffirm our intention to abolish the ineffective and the highly politicised ABCC. It has promoted the coalition's objective of maintaining an adversarial industrial relations system with low wage rises as a deliberate design feature. The Labor government believes agreements can be reached on work sites and that we can obtain a balance. We know that there are employers out there who are raring to take advantage of Labor's industrial relations policies. They don't want this ideological mud wrestling that we've got going on here. They don't want all of this yelling, shouting and carrying on, and the highlighting of small parts of particular areas, rather than looking overall at what these changes will do. They don't have any respect for workers. But not all employers want to crush workers. That is just not true, but it is what those opposite would have us believe. The ABCC is intentionally adversarial with no real traction or outcomes to speak of. Only a handful of the current Australian Building and Construction Commission legal cases actually involve some of the cool things they were set up for. They don't involve underpayment to a worker. They don't involve delayed payments to a subcontractor. What they involve, in the main, is the prosecution of union officials and delegates, or should I say the persecution because the ideological manner in which they roll is unforgiveable. Did the ABCC recover wages for workers? No. A total of $5.9 million in seven years. Let's just compare this $5.9 million in seven years to the $530 million that the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered in one year alone or even the $17 million that the CFMMEU recovered in just six months. I think we can see quite clearly where their priorities are. The ABCC is ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money. It's been a disaster for productivity in the sector, and it's done little to deal with any of the exploitation of workers that we have seen. Let's have a little revisit to the productivity data which Senator Sheldon went through before. It was declined every single year while the ABCC was the regulator pre-pandemic. Every year there was a decline. Every year there was a decline of over two per cent: 2.4 per cent in 2017-18, 2.6 per cent in 2018-19 and 2.6 per cent again in 2019-20. So, we have productivity fail and we have wage theft recovery fail. How did they go on the prosecution? My colleague went through some of those cases. Let me tell you how much those cases that Senator Sheldon referred to cost. The Eureka flags: basically having a flag or a few stickers on a worksite is such a major drama for the ABCC that they spent over $488,000 pursuing Lendlease over it. Then we had the issue of the women's toilet on a worksite, which was pursued at a total cost of $495,000. And, as for the cup of tea, that's just ridiculous! I will point to what the judge said: I hold the clear view that this is a case where the ABCC should be publicly exposed as having wasted public money without a proper basis for doing so … So, the ABCC is a waste of time and a waste of money. The hostility against the rank-and-file workers in the CFMMEU is deplorable. The CFMMEU is an amalgamation of great many unions, many with their own very proud histories. I do not stand here for one moment and defend any illegal activities, but I will tell you that those workers, those union members, are out there and they represent the solidarity of thousands of hardworking Australians across a vast range of industries that Australians rely on. Those opposite undermine the thousands of hardworking unionists, hardworking people in Australia, working in industries that our country relies on. 16:37 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I've got no issue with unions. My father was a proud member of a union. My mother was, and sister is. I've got no issue with unions whatsoever, but this country has a problem with the construction division of the CFMMEU. There's been a lot of talk about judges et cetera. I want the people listening to this debate to listen to what our highest court said. Our highest court in the land is the High Court of Australia and has our seven most pre-eminent judges. This is what they said about the construction division of the CFMMEU. These aren't the words of a politician, from either government or opposition. This is our highest court in the land about the construction division of the CFMMEU, and it tells you everything you need to know about why we need the Australian Building and Construction Commission as the cop on the beat in terms of construction sites in this country. This is what the High Court said in paragraph 43 of their judgement in the Pattinson case: The CFMMEU's continuing defiance of s 349(1) indicates that it regards the penalties previously imposed as an 'acceptable cost of doing business'. Those aren't my words. They aren't the words of a member of the government benches in the Senate. They're the words of our highest court in the land, and, in those circumstances, why would you possibly think it's a good idea to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission? There was talk about the success rate of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Everyone listening to this debate can look up their latest annual report. It provides all the details you need to see. In terms of the court proceedings they initiated during the 12 months ending 30 June 2022, they had a 100 per cent success rate. They won every single case. In every single case where they brought proceedings, the independent court found that the CFMMEU construction division had broken the law. In those circumstances, why would you possibly think it would be a good idea to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission? I will tell you why: because if you go to page 44 of the annual report of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, you will see a reference to a Mr Michael Ravbar. He was a senior official of the CFMMEU construction division. He sat—I'm not sure if he still does—on the national executive of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Michael Ravbar was sitting on their national executive. Let's read about him. I'll go to the footnote. Senators in this place know I like to go to the footnotes. It says: In September 2021, Mr Ravbar abandoned his application with the Fair Work Commission to renew his federal right of entry permit— which gives him the right to go onto construction sites— and is no longer authorised to exercise entry rights in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner intervened in the proceeding, arguing Mr Ravbar was not a fit and proper person to hold a permit. He was not a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit to go onto construction sites. Why? Because, and again I quote: In opposing the application for the permit, the Commissioner submitted that under Mr Ravbar's watch— this is a senior official of the CFMMEU and also a previous or current member of the ALP national executive— the QLD Division and its officials had contravened industrial law on 175 occasions … This fellow was sitting on the national executive of the Australian Labor Party. It's outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous. The situation in Queensland got so bad that workplace health and safety inspectors—who had the statutory obligation to go onto construction sites and make sure those construction sites were adhering to workplace health and safety laws—went on strike because they were concerned about their own personal safety from the CFMMEU. That's how bad it is. In the face of all that objective evidence, in the face of that judgement from the highest court in the land, the Australian Labor Party wants to abolish the ABCC. It's shameful. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 The time for discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 54 DOCUMENTS Consideration 54 BUDGET 54 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 54 16:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of chairs of the respective committees, I present two reports, from the Education and Employment Legislation Committee and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, with respect to the 2022-23 budget estimates, together with accompanying documents. I also present additional information concerning earlier estimates hearings: Additional estimates 2020-21— Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 26 October 2020 and 14 June 2022—Health portfolio. Budget estimates 2021-22 (Supplementary)— Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 16 December 2021 and 3 November 2022— Health portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Additional estimates 2021-22— Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 11 March and 26 September 2022— Health portfolio. Social Services portfolio. COMMITTEES 55 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 55 Report 55 16:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's fifth report of 2022. Parliamentary Standards Joint Select Committee 55 Report 55 16:44 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, I present the final report of the committee, together with accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This week marks one year since the release of Set the standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces by the Australian Human Rights Council's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Commissioner Kate Jenkins. I again acknowledge the work of Commissioner Jenkins in that report. The Set the standard report made 28 recommendations to ensure our parliament is a workplace that is safe and respectful. The former government committed to implementing all 28 of those recommendations, as did the then opposition. A multiparty parliamentary leadership task force chaired by Kerri Hartland was established by the former government to oversee the implementation of the recommendations, and I was honoured to be a member of that task force in the last parliament. The first recommendation of Set the standard was to deliver a joint statement of acknowledgment, and one was delivered to this parliament on the first sitting day of this year. It was a key outcome from the first meeting of the task force. The former government also oversaw the passing of legislation to provide additional protections to staff of parliamentarians and establish this very select committee on parliamentary standards pursuant to further recommendations. We also commissioned a comprehensive review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, and that review has since reported. The implementation of these recommendations built on the changes already introduced following the Foster review of the parliamentary workplace, which the former government commissioned. The former government also extended funding for the important Parliamentary Workplace Support Service and provided extra funding for the Parliamentary Support Line. This was constructive work with colleagues across parliament to make the changes needed to ensure our workplace is safe, supportive and respectful. This report, I hope, demonstrates that such constructive work is continuing, with our response to the Set the standard recommendation to enact codes of conduct for appropriate behaviour in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces that would be underpinned by an independent investigation and enforcement mechanism. As we know, our own Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have not been safe and respectful places for all. Our overarching principles as members of the committee in our committee deliberations and recommendations in this report have been that everyone who visits or works in a CPW—a Commonwealth parliamentary workplace—should be safe and respected. Through our report, we say to all the people who contributed to the Set the standard report: thank you. We heard you. We believe you. We are responding to you. And those generous brave disclosures have meant something because they will help to protect others. This committee heard unanimous support for codes of conduct to establish safe and respectful workplaces. Our evidence came from a broad range of contributors, with varied experiences and perspectives, and I thank them for their contributions. In this report, we have drafted three codes: behaviour standards for all CPWs that set standards that everyone entering those workplaces should meet and that remind everyone that the purpose of the parliament is for the free exchange of ideas in a respectful and professional manner; a behaviour code for staff that sets the standards by which all employees contribute to a safe and respectful workplace and that outlines prohibited behaviours but goes further to outline the need for a more diverse and inclusive workplace; and a behaviour code for parliamentarians that largely mirrors the staff code but also outlines the employer obligations for safe and respectful workplaces as well as expectations for how parliamentarians interact with each other in the course of fulfilling their elected role. It was clearly enunciated to us that, without a confidential, independent and serious investigative body with an effective sanctions regime, these codes will not be able to drive the long-term cultural change that is needed. In our report, the committee strongly supports the recommendation to establish an independent parliamentary standards commission, as proposed in the Set the standard report, along with a range of sanctions. The committee has also put forward recommendations for guidance material and training to accompany these new codes. This is crucial to ensuring that the codes become part of everyday practice, setting clear standards of behaviour in all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. As the chair of the joint select committee, Sharon Claydon, the member for Newcastle, said in the other place today: 'I note this parliament is not alone in finding this a difficult task.' Several past Australian parliaments have tried to address this issue, and despite forming an agreement that a code of conduct was necessary, they failed to develop one. Indeed, the parliament has been considering codes for almost half a century. In 1975 a report on the declaration of interests noted that a meaningful code of conduct should exist in the Australian parliament. In 1993, 2008, 2011 and 2012 the Australian parliament again tried and again failed to introduce codes of conduct. So we know that we're not alone in this parliament in finding these issues sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes challenging. It is difficult in a place of this nature, occasionally, to try to bring those many disparate views together, but we have endeavoured to rise to the challenge. Through these proposed behaviour codes we have responded to the message of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Jenkins, in relation to Setting the standard. This committee has worked very hard in the last few months to deliver this report. I want to thank the secretariat, particularly, for their hard work, particularly in a very compressed time frame. I want to thank the chair, the member for Newcastle, Sharon Claydon, for her leadership of this important process and for her collegiate and constructive approach. It's not possible to produce a report of this nature and deliver the outcomes with which we were charged without that chairing approach, and I am particularly grateful. I also acknowledge my friends and colleagues Senator Claire Chandler and the member for Forrest, Ms Nola Marino, both the coalition members of the joint select committee. Can I say that COVID-19 brought us many things, including online committee meetings, but for a Western Australian member in daylight saving—you may appreciate this, Mr Acting Deputy President Smith—I don't think they were ever meant to start an online meeting at 4.30 am, which is what has happened to the member for Forrest in the last short time. So thank you, Nola, for your patience with us eastern seaboarders. This report is a very important report for this parliament. It's a place in which I have worked, both as a staff member and as a senator, for a long time—that doesn't bear repeating. But I do think that, as a parliament, what we have seen and had to address in the last year has had a very significant impact—no question—on the perceptions of the parliament itself, and I find that profoundly disappointing. I was very pleased to be asked to take on the role of deputy chair of this committee, a joint select on parliamentary standards, because if in some way I can contribute to setting that right, then I am honoured to have had that responsibility. I commend the report to the Senate. 16:53 Senator FA 250362 New South Wales RUQI () (): As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, I rise to speak to the final report of the committee which was tasked with the job of developing codes of conduct for parliamentary precincts, parliamentarians and staff. Between these three codes, all parliamentarians, staff and people who work and visit Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are covered. The recommendation to develop codes of conduct came out of the review of parliamentary workplaces undertaken by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. Set the standard was the report which revealed the toxic culture of our workplace, where so many did not feel safe. It was one year ago that this report was released. I pay tribute to and acknowledge the people who work in this place, current and former, for their exceptional courage in speaking up about the broken culture in here, which has allowed bullying, harassment, sexual assault, racism and discrimination to go on in our workplace. The highest office in this country should have been leading the way on safe and respectful workplaces. Instead, people have been harmed and heard here. I particularly want to thank the many staff, especially those from marginalised and targeted communities, who spoke frankly and bravely about their experiences and what needs to change in here. That can't have been easy. But their bravery is now paving the way for much-needed change. This report, with its accompanying behaviour codes, is the culmination of a great deal of hard work, time and effort not just by those on the committee and the committee's secretariat, who of course do some incredible work, but by so many others through the years who have highlighted the toxic culture of this workplace and provided feedback on how this can and should be changed. The behaviour codes represent a big part of what was missing in order to set a high standard of respect and safety, clearly naming behaviour which is unacceptable and which will not be tolerated in here under any circumstances. The Jenkins report was a devastating indictment of the culture in this place and revealed just how unsafe parliamentary workplaces have been for so long. A staggering 51 per cent of people working in parliamentary workplaces have experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. One in three parliamentary staffers who participated in the review said they had been sexually harassed. A quarter of those who said they were sexually harassed by a single harasser said that the perpetrator was a parliamentarian. Nearly two-thirds of female politicians reported having been sexually harassed. The Set the standard report referenced multiple examples of discrimination experienced by First Nations people, people of colour, people with disability and LGBTQI+ people. These experiences included daily exclusion and microaggressions, bullying, role segregation and a lack of psychological safety. Participants shared that identifying as different from the norm in these workplaces is inherently unsafe. The report also found that the underrepresentation in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces of First Nations people, people of colour, LGBTQI+ people and people with disability as parliamentarians and in other roles across the workplace is linked to systemic inequality and lack of power and creates a conducive environment for bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. I must say that, as a member of one of these groups with a lived experience of intersecting sexism and racism and as someone who has had a lifelong mission of eliminating discrimination not only based on gender but also against marginalised minority groups, developing behaviour standards and codes that explicitly addressed this was quite personal. The work of the last few months has been some of the hardest and most emotional as well as rewarding for me. And I will admit that it does take its toll. I know that there are many like me in our community whose workplaces have been fundamentally unsafe for them. We heard from witness after witness about the need to name and the power of naming unacceptable behaviour over and above basic references to bullying and harassment. Professor Tim Soutphommasane noted that there was particular power in naming things in instruments like codes of conduct and that any code, if it is going to be fit for purpose in a contemporary workplace or institution, should pay attention to the different forms of harassment, bullying and discrimination. Professor Tim Soutphommasane also stated that having a robust code of conduct that pays serious attention to diversity, equality and inclusion may help in ensuring that the parliament over time will be more representative and reflective of the Australian society that it serves. Democracy in Colour agreed that it was incredibly important that other forms of discrimination be listed explicitly alongside gender based discrimination within the code. Fair Agenda stated: … intersectionality is really core to having a proper and robust code that would reflect the expectations of the public. The Human Rights Law Centre spoke of the importance of parliament setting a higher standard of behaviour for the whole country, not just with respect to gender based violence but with regard to other forms of discrimination and abuse, including racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia. The Australian Muslim Advocacy Network raised similar issues, noting how racist political speech impacted not only the parliamentary workplace and the accessibility of a parliamentary career to diverse candidates but public discourse and the rise of hate crime and violent ideological extremism. I am really glad that, in response to these findings, the report has acknowledged the intersections of discrimination that further marginalise First Nations people, people of colour, disabled people and LGBTQI+ communities, and each of the three codes explicitly prohibit discrimination on these grounds. The report also recommends that parliamentarians should have mandatory training in safe and respectful workplaces, people management and inclusive leadership, including antiracism, disability discrimination and First Nations cultural awareness training. This training will be crucial in creating a culture that respects and values diverse people, as well as challenging entrenched power and privilege. The effectiveness of the codes will be very much determined by the enforcement structures that support them. Those who breach the codes must be held accountable with proportionate sanctions. This is absolutely necessary to drive behavioural change, to encourage complainants to come forward and to instil greater public confidence in the codes. The advisory and enforcement regime to support the codes has yet to be established, but I strongly recommend the sanctions as recommended by the Jenkins report. These codes, unanimously agreed by the committee, show that we are serious about stopping misconduct and unacceptable behaviour, and they will make it easier for people to report such behaviour. I urge the parliament to swiftly endorse these behaviour codes and to then adopt them as soon as the investigative and enforcement mechanisms have been established. I also urge the government to commence work on developing codes of conduct which address issues of integrity and democracy. While this work fell outside our committee's remit of preparing codes to make this a safer and more respectful place for those who work and visit here, it is clear that parliament needs stronger standards when it comes to integrity and ethics. I sincerely hope these behaviour codes also help in our parliament becoming more representative of the community that we serve. Parliament is one of the most protected, secure buildings in this country, and yet so many people have not been safe here: women, First Nations people, people of colour, people with disability and LGBTQI+ people. Higher behaviour standards will make parliament safer and more welcoming to these cohorts. We should be leaders in creating a decent workplace, one where everyone feels safe, respected and valued. These behaviour codes take us one step closer to becoming such a workplace. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Senator Ayres, did you want to make a contribution? 17:02 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I only wanted to indicate the government's support for the report. I also want to thank Senator Payne for her comments and thank the members of the committee, including Senator Payne and the chair, Sharon Claydon MP, member for Newcastle. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 58 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, Kigali, Rwanda 58 17:03 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly at Kigali, Rwanda, which took place from 11 to 15 October this year. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document. Leave granted. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I move That the Senate take note of the document. Today I speak about the report that I'm tabling for the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, which, as I said, was held on 11 to 15 October this year. I was greatly honoured to be selected as an IPU delegate for the Australian parliament and to be part of the delegation, which travelled to Kigali, Rwanda to participate in 145th IPU Assembly. The delegation was led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Milton Dick MP. I joined the delegation and was accompanied by the Hon. Warren Entsch MP; Senator Fatima Payman, who I see here in the chamber; and Dr Gordon Reid MP. Firstly, I'd like to most sincerely thank both Jane Thomson and Toni Matulick from the Senate department for all their work organising the delegation visit and also for the preparation of this outstanding report. The IPU itself brings together parliamentarians from around the globe to promote peace, democracy and sustainable development. It also provides an important forum for Australian parliamentary representatives to contribute to contemporaneous global discussions. The IPU itself was founded in 1889, and there are currently 178 parliaments that are members of the IPU, with an additional 14 associate members. It really does offer a unique opportunity for delegates to meet with their international counterparts. The Australian delegation this time met with delegations from New Zealand, Fiji, Timor-Leste, Canada and Britain and also held bilateral meetings with delegations from Afghanistan, Georgia and Serbia. The topic of this year's general debate was absolutely spot-on in terms of its relevance. It was about gender equality and gender sensitive parliaments as drivers for a more resilient and peaceful world. It was both interesting and very practical. We also engaged in very fruitful discussions considering a rights based gender response approach to migration as well as methods to address the root causes of human trafficking and also to ensure survivor-centric antitrafficking legislation, something that I have been particularly passionate about throughout my time here in the Australian Senate. The assembly also adopted a very strong resolution condemning Russia's military occupation of sovereign Ukraine territory and human rights violations perpetrated in Ukraine territory following the Russian invasion. I'm also very proud to say that, when the Russian delegate spoke, the Australian representatives walked out with the Ukrainian delegations in a very visible show of support. It was a privilege to address the 34th session of the Forum of Women Parliamentarians and the Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights. On behalf of Australia, I put forward a proposal to combat the global issue of orphanage trafficking, which was accepted for consideration by the standing committee. The response of other parliamentarians from around the world was immediate and was incredibly positive. My proposal will be put forward as a formal resolution to the 146th IPU Assembly in Bahrain next year and then will be formally adopted at the 147th IPU in October next year. I am greatly honoured to have been appointed as a co-rapporteur for the resolution and am now working alongside colleagues from other parliaments to raise awareness of this issue and to prepare a package of material for parliamentarians, so that they can start tackling this insidious form of trafficking. For those in-this chamber who have not heard me speak about orphanage trafficking previously, it is a particularly insidious form of 21st century trafficking that we have created through our naivety, but also through our compassion to assist orphans and children who are less well-off. That has created a multibillion dollar criminal enterprise—a scam—which is now trafficking up to eight million children into orphanages, so Australians and others can have an orphanage experience. In conclusion, I would like to thank everybody on the delegation and particularly Senator Payman, who very ably took forward this motion. I thank her for her enthusiasm and for her very persuasive words at the conference. (Time expired) 17:09 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia by leave—I'm pleased to speak to the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation that participated in the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, which took place in Kigali, Rwanda from 11 to 15 October 2022, as my colleague Senator Reynolds has already outlined. It was an absolute privilege to be representing Australia on the world stage along with the House Speaker, Mr Milton Dick MP; Dr Gordon Reid MP; Mr Warren Entsch MP; and Senator Linda Reynolds. Delegates from various countries were quite impressed by Australia's demonstrating its multiculturalism and the cultural and age diversity representation in its elected members to parliament. As a young parliamentarian at the IPU, I had the opportunity to participate in the assembly's general debate on the theme of gender equality and gender-sensitive parliaments as drivers of change for a more resilient and peaceful world. In my speech I made the point that while women make up 54 per cent of all parliamentarians and comprise the majority of the Australian Senate—which is a great achievement for women in Australia—we are not finished. However, we need to do more to address the barriers that stand in the way of young women seeing politics as a legitimate career option and parliament as a place where they will be welcomed, valued and encouraged. Dr Reid and I also took the liberty, as young parliamentarians, to make the I Say Yes to Youth in Parliament! pledge because we believe that young people deserve a seat at the decision-making table and need to represent the youth demographic, who often fall through the cracks and whose groundbreaking ideas that ought to be listened to remain with them. Attending the IPU assembly provided an opportunity for Australian parliamentarians to participate in the various IPU committees, to meet international colleagues through bilateral meetings, which Senator Reynolds has already outlined, and to consider matters of mutual interest—for example, the collective effort of many democratic countries standing in solidarity with Ukraine to endorse the resolution calling for condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine and of the subsequent annexation of territories, in defence of the territorial integrity of all states. This resolution emphasised the call for an immediate end to the Russian military occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory, the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, the acknowledgement of its internally recognised borders that extend to its territorial waters and the rule of international law. There was further condemnation of the serious violations of human rights perpetrated in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Chernihiv and other regions of Ukraine. The resolution reinforces the creation of courts with special jurisdiction to investigate possible aggressions perpetrated and to hear cases of war crimes and human rights violations committed on Ukrainian territories. It was really good to see the resolution calling upon all parliaments across the world to raise awareness among state authorities and civil society of the need to contribute to a solution to the humanitarian crisis involving the migration of six million Ukrainian citizens as refugees, to encourage the support and cooperation of the international community in the process of reconstructing Ukraine and to recognise that the war is impacting energy supply, and thus we need to establish a commitment to climate change reduction targets. Justice needs to be restored and I'm proud to say that the Australian delegation wholeheartedly supported the resolution. This trip to Rwanda allowed me to appreciate the importance of the IPU in bringing together parliaments and parliamentarians, in promoting peace, democracy and sustainable development and in providing a forum for Australian parliamentary representatives to contribute to global discussions. It also provided an opportunity for the Australian delegation, skilfully led by Mr Speaker, to work towards the advancement of issues of interest to Australia. In this regard I draw particular attention to the work of Senator Reynolds who, on behalf of the Australian delegation, successfully secured support for a proposed resolution to prevent orphan trafficking and orphanage tourism. I thank the secretariat for their incredible work, along with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Parliamentary Library. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Queensland: The Gabba, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 60

Queensland: The Gabba

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Order for the Production of Documents 60 17:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Gabba Stadium project, and modelling, analysis and legal advice relating to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. COMMITTEES 60 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee, Foreign Interference Social Media 60 Membership 60 17:15 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be appointed to committees as follows: Education and Employment References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Allman-Payne to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into disruption in Australian school classrooms Participating member: Senator Faruqi Foreign Interference through Social Media — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Ciccone and Walsh Participating members: Senators Bilyk, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart and White. Question agreed to. BILLS 60 BILLS Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 60

Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 60 Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 60

Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 60 National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 60

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022

In Committee 60 17:16 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The committee is considering the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the related bill, and amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 1769, moved by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Senator Shoebridge. 17:17 Se 169119 New South Wales nator SHOEBRIDGE () (): I rise to speak about amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 1769, moved by Senator David Pocock. I particularly want to draw the committee's attention to amendment (6). This amendment is about ensuring, as best we can, the financial independence of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I know from my experience in state politics and with the New South Wales ICAC that one of the most effective ways the government of the day had of limiting the reach of that state anticorruption body was to strangle its funding. We've seen over the last decade in particular moves by the current coalition government in New South Wales literally to starve the Independent Commission Against Corruption of funds, and to do so with minimal public scrutiny. There is a multiparty oversight committee for the ICAC in New South Wales, but it has a retrospective role in reviewing the previous year's budget of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It doesn't have the capacity to review the draft budget at budget estimates nor to make recommendations to the government of the day in the budget-making process. In the Commonwealth sphere, we have a very good working model in the role of the public finance committee, which is a multiparty committee. It reviews the finances of the Audit Office. We spoke to the Audit Office in the committee, and the Audit Office—admittedly, speaking only from their experience and, consciously, as good auditors do, not extending their practice themselves to the potential practice of the NACC oversight committee—said that it has worked extremely well for them. It has been a key reason why we have a genuinely independent and adequately funded Audit Office at the federal level. That's because the committee can review the budget estimates and make recommendations for the budget estimates in the budget process, to ensure that the Audit Office has the funds it needs. What Senator Pocock's amendment is doing here is saying, 'Well, if this oversight committee for the NACC undertakes that role'—and we have amendments that would give that explicit role for the committee, and I understand that the government and the opposition may not support those amendments but nevertheless acknowledge that there can be that proactive budget role in this committee, and we will address that when we get to it—and 'if the committee makes a recommendation to the government about the NACC's finances, and the minister decides not to follow that recommendation not to provide the funding in accordance with the committee's recommendation, then the minister has to explain him- or herself.' That is a key element of transparency. There are similar provisions that apply in other jurisdictions—most notably, right here in Canberra. The ACT Legislative Assembly's oversight committee has this exact same process. It is a committee with a non-government chair, a non-government majority, that oversights the budget of their anticorruption commission. When it makes a recommendation, if the ACT government does not accept it, if the treasurer doesn't accept the budget recommendation, then the treasurer has to explain that to the house in the course of the budget. We see it as a core transparency measure. What I'd hoped to hear from the government is, if they don't accept it in black and white, do they accept that that's the process that they expect to follow—that if the NACC oversight committee does make a recommendation about funding without being compelled to by this amendment then does the government expect that that's the practice that will be followed in due course once we get this NACC up and running? 17:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I addressed the government's position on this amendment when we were dealing with it before the break. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 1769 moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:26]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Dean Smith)

16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:29 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move amendment (1) on sheet 1777: (1) Clause 8, page 17 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: Journalist activities (14) To avoid doubt, conduct engaged in by a person who is an employee, contractor or agent of any Commonwealth agency (including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation) that is engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media does not constitute corrupt conduct if: (a) the person engaged in the conduct in the person's capacity as: (i) a person engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or (ii) a person engaged as part of the editorial staff for the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or (b) at the time of engaging in the conduct, the person: (i) was a member of the administrative or production staff of the Commonwealth agency or of a contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency; and (ii) was acting under the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who was an employee, contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency. 17:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The government's amendments, moved in the House of Representatives, on journalist protection action are the consensus recommendations of the joint committee regarding journalists. It is the position of the opposition that we believe that the government has got the balance right here and that the amendment that has been proposed is not required. 17:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We will be opposing the amendment as well. 17:31 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing this issue to the Senate. It's my understanding that the concern that drives this amendment is to ensure there are adequate protections for journalists undertaking journalist activities within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC and the SBS. I note that, as a result of amendments in the other place, there have been increased protections for journalists from warrants that may be on them under the NACC's powers to seek warrants. I'm glad to see the Attorney moved beyond the very narrow recommendations that came out of the committee to provide broader protections for journalists in the amendments that the House adopted. They were amendments that I know myself, and I believe the deputy chair of that committee, the member for Indi, Dr Haines, were seeking to have adopted in that committee. We couldn't persuade the committee to move to adopt those greater protections, but I'm glad to see the Attorney, nevertheless, has adopted those greater protections from warrants for journalists. I also note that clause 117 of the bill expressly protects the premises of the ABC and the SBS from the operation of search warrants under the act. So there are already express protections for the ABC and the SBS in the act. Our concern about the drafting of this amendment—and we accept it has been done in a great hurry—is that it potentially extends the protections I think we would all want for the ABC and SBS to any Commonwealth agency, and arguably anyone engaged in—I will read the amendment—'the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media'. It arguably picks up any agency that has that kind of conduct in it. That broad definition might include the media officers in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. There would be occasions when we would want to ensure that the NACC could investigate what a media officer had put out if it was potentially trying to mask or hide corrupt conduct within PM&C. We'd say the same for the media unit of the Australian Federal Police. We would want to ensure that isn't shielded from the operations of the NACC. I accept that this amendment has come through very late. I accept that it hasn't had the benefit of going to the committee and being reviewed by the committee. In its current format it would potentially, and I think quite likely, exclude a whole series of employees, and potentially agencies well beyond the ABC and the SBS, that should be within the purview of the NACC. I want to say expressly, from the position of the Australian Greens—and I hope we get this echoed from the government and the opposition: individuals engaging in the practice and profession of journalism within the ABC and within the SBS are not intended to be caught within the provisions of the NACC, and challenging the government and potentially publishing and reporting on documents that there may be some statutory secrecy or some other kind of secrecy attached to would not and should not bring journalists within the ABC or the SBS within the purview of the NACC. I hope that's a united position we can adopt. At least this amendment allows us to share that acknowledged position in the chamber. 17:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania This is a really grey area here. I know we have whistleblower legislation coming up. If, for some reason, this gets nixed, that will be tackled; I believe the Attorney-General has made it quite clear he intends to get onto that very early next year. But I believe this is a grey area when it comes to journalists, and that worries me considerably. Without them, many things never come out into the open. I understand we're probably not going to get support from both the major parties. That is worrying, and journalists will have to put up with this over the Christmas period—and that is worrying in itself—worrying about whether or not they are going to eventually end up at the NACC or in court. I am asking the government of the day, if it is not going to be dealt with today and we can't get clear air on this, sincerely to do the right thing: when you do the whistleblower legislation, look at it very thoroughly. 17:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just to add to what I said before: my understanding is we've literally just received this amendment, so there hasn't been adequate time to even consider it. Senator Lambie 250026 We know about adequate time! Senator WATT 245759 Well, Senator Lambie, I don't think people just dump amendments on people and then expect them to vote for them. We will not be supporting the amendment. I'm reading this amendment for the first time myself. I can only come back to the general position, which is that the commission will have the power to investigate systemic and serious corruption. If behaviour does not amount to that, then people have nothing to be concerned about, whether they be journalists or anyone else. Question negatived. 17:37 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1714: (1) Clause 73, page 70 (lines 20 to 24), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This amendment seeks to remove the restraint on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in terms of holding public hearings. As senators would know, the Labor Party took to the election a very simple proposition—that the National Anti-Corruption Commission should be able to hold public hearings if the NACC thought it was in the public interest to hold public hearings. That should be the test. People voted on that basis in good faith, and that seemed to be the position when we were first having discussions with the government after the election, but then somewhere along the line, between the election and now, something happened that flipped the government to now move to this higher threshold which is contained in 73(2): The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that: (a) exceptional circumstances justify holding the hearing … and (b) it is in the public interest to do so. The exceptional circumstances test is, of course, no doubt convenient to the opposition, who would love to see fewer public hearings. We've suddenly seen some kumbaya between the government and the opposition on the whole issue of the NACC, once public hearings were shut down. We heard from the New South Wales ICAC and the Victorian IBAC that this is a test that should not be put into the NACC Bill. The Victorian IBAC has it. They say don't repeat it, it doesn't work, it ties them up with lawyers and it prevents them doing the job. The New South Wales ICAC says they don't have it and they're very glad they don't have it because public hearings are a key way of fighting corruption. They bring out additional witnesses. They hold the institution itself to account. They hold anti-corruption commissions to account, because they have to justify their conduct and their use of public resources and they're dealing with witnesses in the full, bright glare of public view. That's an integrity measure for integrity commissions. We heard from the inquiry a number of unsettling instances where state integrity commissions had had private hearings over months, and sometimes years, where the witnesses felt oppressed. They felt like they weren't getting natural justice, it was all happening in secret and they couldn't tell anyone about it. In pretty much all of the cases that I saw that were potentially disturbing about the way state anti-corruption commissions operated came from private hearings where witnesses felt they could not defend themselves in public. They had their careers put at risk. Councillors we know in Queensland have raised their concerns about private hearings of the Queensland anti-corruption commission. They've said that they are unfair. Having public hearings is not just good for the integrity of the broader Commonwealth government and politicians. It's not just good for informing the public about what the bloody hell goes on in this place. It's also good for holding anti-corruption commissions to account. That's the lesson that the government and the opposition seem to be ignoring. It's almost as though there's a calculation between the government and the opposition in this, that they'd rather one bad story on shutting down public hearings and squashing the NACC's ability to have public hearings. They will take that one bad story because it will protect business as usual in this place from the next 40 or 50 stories that will play out in public hearings as the real way in which federal politics is done is exposed in the NACC in the years to come. One bad story of shutting down the NACC shuts down 40 or 50 future bad stories in full public glare about how business is done in this place. That's the calculation that's been made by the major parties in this place. That's why the crossbench have been pretty much united in saying let's have public hearings and let's expose how business is really done at a Commonwealth level. That's why we moved this amendment. It gets rid of exceptional circumstances, it reinstates Labor's promise in the election and it is critical for the functioning of the NACC. 17:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to clarify something. I believe the NACC is supposed to be truly independent. Is that a yes or no? Is the NACC truly independent? 17:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes. 17:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania If the NACC is truly independent, why are you putting restrictions on it when you say only under 'exceptional circumstances'? You don't say that's dictating to how things will be? I don't understand how you say it's independent on one side and then you dictate to it how it's going to be and that public hearings will be in exceptional circumstances. How does that possibly make it independent? 17:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In the discussion we were having about this bill before question time—and I don't think you were in the chamber at that point when this came up—Senator Shoebridge was asking why we weren't prepared to give examples of what exceptional circumstances might be. The answer I gave him was that we wanted to preserve the commission's independence by not dictating to them or limiting them as to what the exceptional circumstances could be. We're trying to strike the right balance here, between providing the commission with the measures that it requires along with making sure that people involved in the commission are given appropriate natural justice. We think that by granting the commission power to have public hearings in exceptional circumstances without setting down exactly what those circumstances are and leaving it to the commission to determine for themselves is the appropriate balance. 17:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania So you can't tell me either. To be exact, how does the commission itself interpret this? Seriously! Why did you bother putting it in there? Is it just a fear thing? Do you want most of the things done behind doors? Because that's how we understand it and that's how the public understands it. 17:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think that is how the public understands it. I think what the public understands is that, as a result of the change in government and with the support of the crossbench, we are going to have a national anticorruption commission for the first time in this country. That's what I think the country understands. I also think that the country understands that this commission will have the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances. We think that's an appropriate threshold which reflects the significant nature of the power to compel a person to answer questions at a public hearing. It also reflects the sensitivities involved in holding public hearings—for example, the risk of prejudicing a future criminal investigation or trial and also the issues of reputational harm that may arise. But where the commission considers there are exceptional circumstances that justify having a public hearing, then it will be able to do that. 17:46 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for your explanation. Can I put on the record, from the consultations I've done across the ACT, how disappointed people are with the Labor government to have promised an independent commission against corruption where public hearings would be held when in the public interest to now have done a deal with the opposition to insert 'exceptional circumstances'. As we've heard from experts like Professor Twomey, it is almost impossible now for the NACC to have public hearings. I've had a number of former senior public servants raise concerns about this. It does not seem necessary. From my engagement in the committee process it seemed like, again and again, people talked about the need to keep it independent, to allow the NACC to decide for itself whether or not it was in the public interest. 17:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to go back to 'public interest'. First of all, what does that look like? And how do they interpret that, since we can't interpret that in here? 17:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The bill doesn't refer to 'the public interest'. The bill refers to the commission having the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances. The bill also sets out factors which the commission may consider when determining whether to hold a hearing in public. They include the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct, any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would be likely to be caused if the hearing were in public and the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct. So if the commission considers that there are benefits in exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct, it has the power to decide to hold a public hearing if it wants to do so. It's not as if it is prevented from doing so. I'm sure this has been pointed out to all of the senators questioning us about this, but it will often be appropriate that hearings be conducted in private—for example, to avoid prejudicing an ongoing investigation or related criminal proceedings, to protect the privacy of witnesses or to ensure national security information is protected from disclosure. It will be a matter for the commissioner to weigh up all of these considerations, but I would be surprised if any senator thought it would be a good idea to allow or force a corruption commission to hold a public hearing when that could prejudice an ongoing investigation or related criminal proceedings. That is the risk if the power is opened up more widely, as is being suggested. As I say, we think we've got the balance right in allowing the commission to hold those public hearings in exceptional circumstances—for instance, where it does think that there are benefits in exposing corrupt conduct to the public and where the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct justifies it. 17:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales That would have to be some of the most balderdash, rubbish reading of how this bill works that I've ever heard! It does the minister no credit to deliberately, or perhaps 'accidentally', totally misrepresent how the bill works in practice. All of the elements the minister spoke about will be considered separately already, and are required to be considered separately by the commission when it's working out whether or not a hearing is in the public interest. So all those matters are already considered, and appropriately considered. The checks and balances are in place: no trial will be prejudiced and national security information, although extremely broadly defined, will be protected. All of those matters are already covered by the commission when considering the public interest. Assume, on this bill's drafting, that the commissioner forms the view: 'Yes, I've considered that. All those elements are sorted, nothing's going to go wrong and it's in the public interest that we have public hearings. We absolutely want to do this. It's absolutely, 100 per cent in the public interest.' But then he says, 'Well, actually, we can't satisfy exceptional circumstances.' So all the protections are in place and it's clearly in the public interest to have a public hearing, but the government has decided—whether or not it's through a deal with the coalition or not; I suspect it is—that they want to bind the commission's hands and say, 'Even if it's in the public interest, even if all of those matters are protected, you still can't do it unless there's exceptional circumstances.' We know from case law in Victoria that exceptional circumstances means what it says: exceptional. So there's a real doubt that any of the run-of-the-mill, ugly corruption that we've seen time and time again in the states and territories, and in this place, will get a public viewing, because they can't meet exceptional circumstances. This is not helping the commission; this is designed deliberately to tie its hands. 17:51 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to ask the minister again, whether, given all the other checks and balances in the public interest—not prejudicing future legal cases—whether exceptional circumstances would apply for example, in equivalent cases to that of Premier Dan Andrews in Victoria. We're told, although it's been in secret, that there have been two hearings against him under the Victorian IBAC. I campaigned very hard, and did lots of talking to many, many voters in the lead-up to the Victorian state election. Our state team had as part of their platform strengthening the Victorian IBAC so as to have more public hearings rather than the private hearings that are currently in place in Victoria. That's what this legislation seems to be modelled on. I can tell you, Minister, that there was a huge amount of support for having public hearings. People were very aware of the fact that there were private hearings involving their Premier that they were not privy to, that the Victorian public were being kept in the dark about, and comparing that with the situation in New South Wales, where, because of public hearings, when you had a Premier who was under scrutiny by the New South Wales ICAC, well—surprise, surprise!—the Premier decided that she had to resign. So, Minister, would exceptional circumstances apply if it were a Premier who was under investigation, or if it were a Prime Minister or a minister of the Crown under investigation? Would those be exceptional circumstances, that, along with everything else—that it was in the public interest and no legal cases would be prejudiced—would that be the case? 17:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to get into what may or may not be exceptional circumstances, and I'm surprised that the very parts of this chamber which say they're about making sure we have an independent anticorruption commission now want to get a government minister to say what amounts to exceptional circumstances. I have no intention whatsoever to say what amounts to exceptional circumstances or what does not, based on hypothetical examples. That's because I respect the independence of the commissioner and I would encourage you to do so as well. 17:54 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, of the 140 or so submissions made to the inquiry, do you accept that the overwhelming majority of those submissions were not in favour of including the exceptional circumstances test? 17:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I accept that there are a range of views on this matter. There were a range of views presented in submissions. There are a range of views within this chamber. I can't add to what I've already said as to why the government is going down this path, but the good thing is that at the end of this debate, once we see the Senate vote, we will for the very first time in this country have a strong, independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. 17:55 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Is the minister able to inform the chamber as to how many of those submissions were in favour of an exceptional circumstances test and how many were against? 17:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm happy to provide that on notice to Senator Allman-Payne, but what I am aware of is that there are a variety of interests. I understand the Greens don't support this. I understand there are some Independent senators who don't support this. But this is an appropriate balance to be struck. Unlike the Greens, a Labor government is delivering a National Anti-Corruption Commission for the very first time, and I'm very proud of that. 17:55 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland As a senator for Queensland I would like to place on the record that an overwhelming number of Queenslanders voted for parties that stood for an independent integrity commission, and those Queenslanders expected that justice would be done in public. They agree that daylight is the best disinfectant, and I think we can all agree that putting in this test does not do that. 17:56 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I was just wondering: where did you get your advice from, then, to put in 'exceptional circumstances'? Could you provide that advice to us, please? 17:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've said before, we consulted broadly about this topic— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Was it with the Leader of the Opposition? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 Senator Shoebridge, you don't have the call. Senator WATT 245759 As I've said, we consulted widely about this. I accept that there are groups in the community that think that there should be public hearings in every instance. I also accept—and I don't know whether the senators asking these questions accept—that there are people who don't support that. What we have tried to do is strike a balance. I've already given the very good reasons why it is not wise to provide the commission with a default public hearing power, but they do have the powers to go down that path if they decide there are exceptional circumstances that warrant it. But I'd ask you to respect the fact there are actually people out there who disagree with you as well. 17:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm wondering if you could please advise us a list of the people or the persons or the institutions out there who gave you advice to use those specific words 'exceptional circumstances'. You're being very broad there. It's pretty simple. Gee, there must be someone out there who had great legal advice to give you. You must have that on paper. Who gave you that advice to put those two words in the bill? 17:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've already taken that on notice. 17:58 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As I pointed out earlier, of the people who believe that there was no need for exceptional circumstances, may I just out that the Labor Party before the election was in that group, and you potentially would have been sitting alongside us on this one. Given the importance of this, I really do want to stress how important this is to so many Australians. This last election many Australians cast their vote thinking about transparency, wanting more transparency and more accountability, and elected a government who promised a NACC—which, as you point out, you're delivering. But a key part of that was public hearings, where it was in the public interest. If the Senate would indulge me, I will just read some of the responses that I've had sent in to me. Susan Vickers in Red Hill says: A federal integrity commission is crucial. Hearings should be public in interests of transparency and accountability. Sarah in Giralang says: This is really important, we need public hearings and action taken on outcomes. There needs to be a tightening on lobbyists and review of media power as this influenced election outcomes and ministerial decisions. Caroline Reid in Fraser puts it: The NACC Bill must be amended further as per Helen Haine's defeated amendments to ensure that public hearings are not restricted in any way because the low rate of prosecution of politicians through ICAC processes is too low to act as a deterrent against pork barrelling, nepotism and fraud. Lastly, Gary Shapcott from Woden says: A NACC that investigates secrecy, corruption and sleaze in government IN SECRET HEARINGS ain't gonna build public trust in government. A NACC is supposed to deliver TRANSPARENCY and accountability to the public, not another layer of smoke and mirrors. 18:00 Sena 245759 Queensland tor WATT (—) (): Thanks, Senator Pocock. Again, I respect the fact that are people in that chamber and people in the community who have a different view on this point. But I think anyone who is listening to this debate needs to be assured that, as a result of this historic legislation being passed, we will have, for the very first time in Australia, a national anticorruption commission that is strong, that is independent, and that will dig out corruption within federal politics and federal government. That is a good thing. It will have the power to act retrospectively. It will have the power to compel the production of documents. It will have the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances. It will have the power to initiate investigations of its own accord, rather than only those investigations that the government of the day wants commenced. I think it would be a disservice if people were to shoot down this historic bill and this National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will do more for restoring public faith in our democracy in Australia than any other institution that this parliament has created. 18:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania South Australia's ICAC ran into real problems because everything was done in secret. This caused the public and parliament to lose confidence in South Australia's ICAC. Do you concede the secrecy you are proposing will erode public confidence in the NACC? 18:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, I don't. For starters, there will be robust and transparent reporting at the end of corruption investigations and public inquiries, and that will provide transparency and support the commission's prevention and education function. It is incorrect for any Senator to be suggesting that the work of this anticorruption commission will be entirely done in secret and people will never find out about it. There will be times when private hearings will be held, and there will be times when public hearings will be held. At the end of those investigations, the findings of those investigations will be made public and, if appropriate, prosecutions will then commence. 18:02 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Public hearings help to inform and educate the public and are used as a deterrent. They also help to education public servants, politicians and institutions by reinforcing the rules by which public administration must be conducted. Do you agree this is a political fix designed to protect the self-interest of the Labor and Liberal parties? Senator Watt 245759 No. 18:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales If there's a public hearing, the report must be made public. At least to that extent, the minister's correct. But if there are private hearings, there is absolutely no obligation for the report to be made public. The minister is either unintentionally or deliberately misleading the Senate and misleading the public. Far from taking comfort from what the minister said, people should be deeply troubled. If that's what the government has been telling its less engaged ministers and backbenchers—'Don't worry, it will all become public after a private hearing'—that's totally wrong. The commissioner may make a hearing or a report public; it's totally discretionary. The only person we know will get a copy of a report if there's been a private hearing, the one person that is absolutely going to get a copy of the report, is the Attorney-General. That's the only person who can be guaranteed to get a copy of a report if there's a private hearing. The rest of the public may be kept in the dark for as long as we know. We may get some tiny clue, a crumb, in the annual report published by the commission where they have to, in a generic way, perhaps no more than one line long, describe the general nature of the investigations they've done. Far from being comforted by what the minister has said, we should be deeply troubled that either the minister doesn't understand how the bill works or he's been badly briefed. These private hearings may never get the light of any public review, and the reports may never be seen by anyone other than the Attorney-General of the government of the day. 18:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Shoebridge, for acknowledging that the commission can and may make findings of a private inquiry public. Thank you for acknowledging that. 18:05 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Attorney-General has said that he won't use his powers to stop the prosecutions of whistleblowers like Richard Boyle and David McBride unless there are—what do you know?—exceptional circumstances. The Attorney-General has defined 'exceptional circumstances' as meaning almost never. So, that's what this bill is proposing, isn't it—that public hearings will be almost never? 18:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. The CH AIR: The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1714 revised, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:10]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:13 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 1714: (2) Clause 73, page 70 (after line 24), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), exceptional circumstances include where it is preferrable and appropriate for evidence to be given in public rather than in private. Given that the previous amendment to remove the exceptional circumstances test has not been accepted by either the government or the opposition, this amendment is designed to provide some certainty as to what 'exceptional circumstances' means and to do it in a way such that it encourages more rather than fewer public hearings. Rather than just a stab in the dark—have a guess, and you're not willing to say anything about what 'exceptional circumstances' means, which is the kind of go-to position from the government—this proposes to clearly say that for the purposes of section 73(2) of the NACC bill exceptional circumstances include where it's preferable and appropriate for evidence to be given in public rather than private. That obviously would be a major step forward for transparency. You get to keep the exceptional circumstances test that the government seems so attached to—the government has such emotional and political attachment to the exceptional circumstances test—and then we get to define it in a way such that it doesn't shut down the NACC. I want to credit the CPSU in particular for their advocacy in the inquiry that we had, where they suggested this as a solution that might get past the political impasse of insisting on having the exceptional circumstances test. It's with hope that we can move beyond political deadlock, clearly define what exceptional circumstances mean and allow the NACC to do its job, and if it thinks it is in the public interest, and if they think it's preferable and appropriate for evidence to be given in public rather than private they can get on and do it. 18:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, we will be opposing this amendment. It's passing strange that having just told us and lectured us on why we needed to make the Anti-Corruption Commission independent, Senator Shoebridge now wants to dictate to the commission what constitutes exceptional circumstances. As we have said all along, we think that the commission should be allowed to act independently without a government dictating to it what amounts to exceptional circumstances. We have full confidence in the commission being able to work that out by exercising their own discretion. 18:15 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales That is a bizarre contribution from the minister. The definition here is an inclusive definition designed to empower the NACC and it includes where it is preferable and appropriate for evidence to be given in public and there's a public interest in place. The minister's contribution does him no credit. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 287062 I put the question that amendment (2) on sheet 1714 revised, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to. Question negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 287062 I understand that the amendments in the name of the Jacqui Lambie Network and Senator David Pocock will not be moved, so we come to amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 1714 revised. 18:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Amendments (3) and (4) seek to do a very simple thing. They will allow a journalist, or an entity that employs a journalist, that's been served with a warrant to produce documents or to attend an examination—they will allow that journalist or that employer of the journalist—to contest the warrant, to be there in court and articulate to the judge why the warrant shouldn't be issued or why the warrant should be narrowed, or set out such other appropriate submissions, as journalists should be able to make, before the coercive powers of the NACC can be exercised against a journalist. I've said before, and I'll repeat it, we think it's good that the Attorney moved beyond the recommendations that came from the committee, the very narrow recommendations that came from the committee, to slightly increase journalist protections, to ensure that when a warrant is going to be issued the public interest, protecting journalism and journalists protecting their sources must be considered by the court. But this amendment goes that further necessary step to say unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a serious material risk that the journalist will seek to conceal or destroy the evidence, unless there's that concern, that the journalist has to be given notice and allowed the opportunity to contest that warrant. Why do we do this? We do this because it is already in practice in the United Kingdom and it works in the United Kingdom. There is not a single instance from the practice in the UK where a journalist that has been served with a warrant and given the opportunity to contest it has ever destroyed the evidence. But it allows the public interest to be fully contested. It protects journalism. It would be a deep irony if this parliament, in moving to empower the National Anti-Corruption Commission and to create an anticorruption body at the centre of the Commonwealth integrity agencies, in the same move harmed journalism and made it harder to be a journalist and challenged the existing integrity measures in journalism. That's why I seek leave to move amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 1714 together, and commend them to the House. Leave granted. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I move Greens amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 1714 together: (3) Clause 124, page 111 (after line 23), after subsection 3E(2A) of the Crimes Act 1914, insert: (2AA) Before deciding whether to issue a warrant, the issuing officer must: (a) give a notice in writing to the journalist or the employer of the journalist, to whom the warrant relates, stating that an application for a warrant has been made; and (b) give the journalist or the employer of the journalist, to whom the warrant relates, the opportunity to make written or oral submissions. (2AB) The Minister may, in writing, prescribe the form for the notice under paragraph (2AA)(a). (4) Clause 124, page 111 (after line 31), after subsection 3E(2B) of the Crimes Act 1914, insert: (2BA) However, subsections (2AA) and (2B) do not apply if the issuing officer is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that if a person was given a notice, there is a serious material risk that the evidential material might be concealed, lost, mutilated or destroyed. 18:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government is committed to upholding and strengthening the freedom of the press in Australia. The bills contain strong protections for the identity of journalists' sources. The government has moved amendments to the bill in response to the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to broaden the public interest test that would apply where the commission seeks a search warrant in relation to a journalist or their employer, to apply in relation to any such application rather than applications made as part of an investigation into a secrecy offence. This amendment would require issuing officers to weigh the public interest in issuing the warrant against the public interest in protecting the source's identity and facilitating the exchange of information between journalists and members of the public so as to facilitate reporting of matters in the public interest. The bills also contain strong safeguards to protect the identities of journalists' sources and uphold the public interest associated with the free press. Journalists and their employers will not be required to do anything under the bill that would disclose the identity of their source or enable that identity to be ascertained. The government has made amendments to the bill to strengthen those protections in response to recommendations made by the joint select committee reviewing the bills. The scope of the protection has been expanded to protect persons assisting a journalist who are members of staff of the same media organisation, as well as other persons assisting a journalist in their professional capacity. This will ensure persons who are assisting a journalist and who may be aware of the identity of confidential informants are protected—for example a camera person, editor or a lawyer providing legal advice in connection with an article. The government has also broadened the public interest test that would apply where the commission seeks a search warrant in relation to a journalist or their employer, to apply in relation to any such application rather than applications made as part of an investigation into a secrecy offence. The government notes that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security considered, in its bipartisan 2020 press freedoms report, that warrants under section 3A of the Crimes Act should continue to be issued without notice to the relevant journalist or media organisation. The government, for those reasons, does not support the proposed amendments. 18:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I note the comments that have been made by the minister. In that respect the coalition does believe that the government amendment has appropriately addressed the issue of journalist protections, in particular as highlighted in the consensus recommendation of the joint standing committee. As such, we will not be supporting the amendment. 18:22 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Thankfully, the Attorney has gone well beyond the recommendation that came from the joint committee already, in amendments. But even with those amendments, which I accept were a step forward for the protection of journalists, all of these decisions will be made ex parte. Warrants will be issued, they'll be made often within chambers in the absence of any submissions from a journalist or any representations from a journalist about why warrants should not be issued. The Greens firmly believe that in this space the interests of justice are best served by allowing the media themselves to make the arguments in court about why their sources, their work and their function should be protected—if it's appropriate—from the reach of the NACC. As I said before, we don't want to cruel journalism as we go through and create another anticorruption body, because up to now, and hopefully going forward, journalism has been one of the critical anticorruption measures. Question negatived. 18:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move amendments (7) and (8) on sheet 1714 together: (7) Page 147 (after line 12), after clause 176, insert: 176A Committee may request draft estimates for NACC (1) The Committee may request the Commissioner to submit to the Committee draft estimates for the NACC for a financial year before the annual Commonwealth budget for that financial year. (2) The Commissioner must comply with the request in time to allow the Committee to consider the draft estimates and make recommendations on them before the budget. (8) Clause 177, page 148 (after line 18), after paragraph (1)(f), insert: (fa) to consider draft estimates for the NACC submitted under section 176A; (fb) to make recommendations to both House of Parliament, and to the Attorney-General, on draft estimates referred to in paragraph (fa); Taken together, these amendments will expressly empower the oversight committee to request draft estimates—the draft budget, effectively—for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. They will then require the NACC to provide those draft estimates to the committee and then allow the committee expressly to make recommendations to both houses of parliament and to the Attorney-General on those draft estimates. In other words, if there's not enough money in the kitty for the NACC, if there's not enough money being provided for them to do their job, then the committee can recommend what the level of funding should be during the budget process. As I said before, and I won't repeat the submissions we made about how this already works for the National Audit Office, these amendments seek to draw from that experience and the longstanding provisions for the National Audit Office. It simply repeats those workable, functioning provisions for the National Audit Office for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. For those reasons, we commend them to the committee. 18:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Shoebridge, for your amendment. The bill already provides the parliamentary joint committee with a broad function to review the commission's budget and finances. This includes reporting to the parliament on whether the commission's resources are sufficient to perform its functions effectively and whether its budget should be increased. The powers and proceedings of the committee would be determined by resolution of both houses of the parliament. If both houses of the parliament provide the parliamentary joint committee with the powers to call witnesses and to require the production of documents, the committee could require the commission to provide information on the commission's budget and finances, and request a response within a given time frame. No amendment to the bill is required to achieve this. For that reason, the government does not support the amendments. 18:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, on behalf of the opposition, I do note the reasons given by the minister. I would only add that the coalition believes that budgetary decisions in relation to any government agency should be left to the government of the day. As such, we also will not be supporting the amendments. 18:27 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The difficulty, of course, with the opposition's proposition—and I think it's one of the concerns we have about their approach to the NACC—is to treat the NACC as just any government agency. It clearly isn't. Integrity agencies, whether the Audit Office or the NACC, are not just any government agencies that can either be starved of funds or not by the government of the day. These are agencies that we really should see as an extended fourth arm of government. We have the legislature, we have the executive, we have the judiciary and, given the complexity of modern government, we should also see integrity agencies effectively as a fourth arm of government that needs to have secure, independent funding. Simply to say, as the opposition does, that they should be treated as any other government agency—able to be starved of funds by the government of the day at a whim—I think highlights a real concern we have about the approach that might be taken in the future to the finances and funding of the NACC. In fact, if ever there were a powerful reason to support the amendments that we have put here, it was the contribution we just heard, which seeks to treat the NACC as just any government agency. That is downright dangerous for the future operations of the NACC. The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (7) and (8) on sheet 1714 as revised in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:32]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

14 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:36 Senator DAVID 256136 Australian Capital Territory POCOCK () (): I, and on behalf of the Australian Greens, move: (1) Clause 178, page 150 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or the Inspector: (a) the decision to approve or reject the recommendation is to be determined by a simple majority of members of the Committee; and (b) paragraph 173(5)(b) does not apply in relation to a vote on a decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation. 18:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This amendment would provide for the oversight committee when it's considering just two critical issues, which are the appointment of the commissioner and the appointment of the inspector. It would provide that the oversight committee could only make that decision by a simple majority of members—not a super majority but a simple majority of members. It also provides that when determining that majority the provisions that provide for a casting vote of the chair do not apply. So, in other words, 50 per cent plus one of the members in attendance of the committee have to agree to the appointment of a commissioner or an inspector. Why is that important? It's important because it's hard to think of a more critical job for the oversight committee than determining who the commissioner and inspector of the NACC will be. On the current drafting, where the committee is six members of the government chosen from both houses and six non-government members—four of the opposition and two of the crossbench—chosen from each house, if there is an equality of votes then the government chair gets to determine the outcome. That effectively hands complete control to the government of the day in that critical decision about the appointment of a commissioner. I acknowledge there's been a fair bit of public debate about that in the last 24 hours. There are propositions being put forward by the opposition to have a 75 per cent super majority. And, indeed, in the course of the inquiry, we heard time and again from the government and the opposition that you don't need to have any kind of super majority because these things are always done by consensus. We are told that it will always be unanimous, that everyone will always agree because that's how these committees work. If that's the case, if the expectation is that the proposed appointments will be of such quality it will always be done by consensus, where's the harm in acquiring just a simple majority? We've heard from the government. They were very concerned that this would somehow provide a veto to the opposition. Well, far from providing a veto for an opposition, this gives the government of the day three potential avenues to get their commissioner appointed. They can get either of the crossbench members to agree, and, if either of them agree, there's the simple majority, or they can get the opposition to agree. That's three different avenues to get the government's appointment agreed. Why is that important? That's because we want to put a check and balance not just on the current government but we want to put a check and balance on a future government that may be much more noxious. We may actually want to appoint a commissioner to do over the opposition. We may want to appoint a commissioner to do harm. And of course there should be somebody other than the government of the day having oversight of the appointment of the commissioner so that it's not just a blank cheque. So, the Greens firmly believe that this amendment gets the balance right. And I say 'the Greens', but I think a substantial chunk of the crossbench believes it, and I'd include the member for Indi, Dr Haines. And I know this is an amendment that was moved by Senator Pocock, and I appreciate and respect his position in this debate. This amendment gets the balance right. It's not a blank cheque for the government. It's not a veto for the opposition. But it is a check on the executive, and it is not just for this government but is about future-proofing the NACC. 18:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senators Pocock and Shoebridge for their amendment. The bill provides for multipartisan representation on the committee and ensures that the commission, including its key office holders, has the confidence of the parliament. It is the government's intention and sincere hope that appointments to the commission will receive multipartisan support. Broad parliamentary support for appointments will be integral to the commission's credibility. Proposed recommendations for appointments will be subject to transparent and merit based processes and statutory eligibility criteria. This will ensure that appointments are subject to appropriate oversight and that the recommended candidates for these important roles have the confidence of the parliament. It is appropriate that the government of the day, which has responsibility for government decisions regarding the commission, such as funding, hold the role of chair and have the casting vote. The government therefore does not support this amendment. 18:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition will also not be supporting this amendment. The Senate will note that the coalition had previously moved an amendment in relation to, we believe, bipartisanship being best achieved with the three-quarters majority that we had proposed in our amendment, and I set out our reasons in my speech during the second reading debate. I do know that it was not supported by the Senate, and on that basis we won't be supporting this amendment, and the status quo as outlined by the minister will prevail. 18:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I'm interested in why you think we should leave it to hope when we have an opportunity to legislate that the government of the day needs to simply convince one other member of the committee that they have the right commissioner. We've heard much criticism, and rightly so, for captain's picks by the executive over the years, and clearly there's a feeling amongst Australians that that needs to end. And here we have an opportunity to legislate a NACC that will ensure that the government of the day cannot just put whomever they like in there. Why aren't we doing that now? 18:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Pocock. As I indicated earlier, we believe that it is appropriate that the government of the day, which does have responsibility for government decisions regarding the commission, such as funding, also holds the role of chair and has the casting vote. But, as I said, it is certainly our intention that appointments to the commission will receive multipartisan support, and that's the way we'll be approaching it. The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1775, standing in the names of Senators Pocock and Shoebridge, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:47]
(The Chair—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. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:50 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): I indicate to the Senate that I won't be moving amendment (9) on sheet 1714. In lieu of that, I seek leave to move amendment (1) on sheet 1778, which has been recently circulated. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you, Senator Cash! I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) together. Leave granted. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1778 together: (1) Clause 184, page 152 (line 18) to page 153 (line 20), omit the clause, substitute: 184 Functions of the Inspector (1) The Inspector has the following functions: (a) to detect corrupt conduct within, and relating to, the NACC; (b) to undertake preliminary investigations into NACC corruption issues or possible NACC corruption issues; (c) to conduct NACC corruption investigations into NACC corruption issues that could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic; (d) to refer NACC corruption issues to the NACC, Commonwealth agencies and State or Territory government entities; (e) to investigate complaints of agency maladministration or officer misconduct made in relation to the conduct or activities of: (i) the NACC; or (ii) a staff member of the NACC; (f) to audit the operations of the NACC for the purpose of: (i) monitoring compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth; and (ii) detecting agency maladministration and officer misconduct; (g) to make recommendations to the NACC on the outcomes of such audits; (h) to provide relevant information and documents to the Committee; (j) to receive public interest disclosures (within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013) and to deal with those disclosures; (k) to report, and make recommendations, to both Houses of the Parliament on the results of performing the functions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (j). (2) The Inspector also has such other functions conferred on the Inspector by this Act or by any other Act. (3) For the purposes of this section: agency maladministration means an act or omission engaged in by the NACC that: (a) is unlawful conduct; or (b) is not unlawful, but: (i) is corrupt conduct; or (ii) is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory in its effect; or (iii) arises, wholly or in part, from improper motives; or (iv) arises, wholly or in part, from a decision that has taken irrelevant matters into consideration; or (v) arises, wholly or in part, from a mistake of law or fact; or (vi) is conduct of a kind for which reasons should have, but have not, been given; or (c) is in accordance with a law or established practice, being a law or practice that is, or may be, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory in its effect. officer misconduct means conduct engaged in by a staff member of the NACC, which, if engaged in by the NACC, would amount to agency maladministration. (2) Clause 214A, page 168 (lines 16 to 33), omit the clause, substitute: 214A Inspector's powers to conduct audits For the purposes of conducting an audit as mentioned in paragraph 184(1)(f), the Inspector: (a) may, at all reasonable times, enter and remain on any premises occupied by the NACC; and (b) is entitled to all reasonable facilities and assistance that the Commissioner is capable of providing; and (c) is entitled to full and free access at all reasonable times to any information, documents or other property of the NACC; and (d) may require a staff member of the NACC to provide any information the Inspector considers necessary, being information: (i) that is in the staff member's possession, or to which the staff member has access; and (ii) that is relevant to the audit; and (e) may examine, make copies of or take extracts from any information or documents. The bill as initially drafted gave a very narrow role for the inspector—simply to determine whether or not any serious or systemic corruption had occurred within the NACC. One would hope that would never happen. For that reason, the inspector may well have had almost no functions at all under the original drafting. There's been a very small increase, as a result of recommendations made by the committee, to provide some oversight of a small part of the compulsory powers of the NACC by the inspector. Some of the most compelling evidence we had in the inquiry came from Bruce McClintock SC, the current inspector of the New South Wales ICAC and of the Northern Territory equivalent. When he read the bill, he was very surprised to see the very narrow scope given to the inspector. He in particular said the inspector really needs to have the ability to conduct ongoing audits of the NACC to ensure that it's not engaged in any kind of maladministration or abuse of powers. We're giving this body, the NACC, extraordinary powers—appropriate extraordinary powers—to issue warrants, to compel witnesses to attend. We want to be sure there's somebody keeping an eye on that, especially as much of this may well be done in private hearings. If we don't have the ability to hold the NACC to account in public hearings, if much of this is happening in private hearings, who does someone go to if there is no natural justice in the hearings or if search warrants or other powers are being abused? Under the current drafting, there is nobody—maybe a complaint to the Ombudsman that might be heard in due course. If we're going to have an inspector, we should heed the advice given by people already doing the job and who, I think all of us would probably accept, are doing a bloody good job, like the inspector of the New South Wales ICAC and other inspectors around the country. This amendment seeks to capture the recommendations given by Bruce McClintock. Indeed, I'm very grateful to him for providing the committee not just the submission but the initial drafting for this amendment, and I'm grateful for the cooperation we've had from the government to improve the drafting of it to make clearer what the role of the inspector is and to expressly set out what the inspector's powers will be in conducting audits. For that reason, I'm glad Senator Cash reminded me to move amendment (2) because it sets out in detail the ability of the inspector, when they are conducting an audit, to enter and remain on the premises of the NACC, to have access to the facilities and be entitled to full and free access to any of the information documents or other property of the NACC—critical powers the inspector should have. I know we've had some division in this debate, and I know there has been a difference in views between the crossbench and the major parties on many issues. But what we're hoping for with this amendment is that we can all agree that a properly empowered inspector, with the right powers and extensive powers to check on potential maladministration—to ensure that the extraordinary powers of the NACC are not being abused and to ensure that natural justice is done, especially as many of the hearings will be in public—is a step forward for transparency and is an important measure to ensure that the promise of the NACC is not in some way betrayed or undermined by any kind of abuse of process, going forward. It's an important amendment, and I commend it to the house. 18:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government certainly believes that it's important for the inspector to have powers, and that's exactly why, under the bill, the inspector is able to investigate complaints made in relation to the conduct or activities of the commission, or a staff member of the commission. The inspector would also be responsible for detecting and investigating corrupt conduct within the commission and reporting on the outcome of those investigations. The bill actually already provides those powers. As Senator Shoebridge acknowledged, the government has also moved amendments to the bill in response to the recommendation of the joint select committee in relation to audit powers of the inspector, and for these reasons we don't think that this amendment is necessary. The sufficient powers are already provided to the inspector under the bill. 18:56 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I indicate that the coalition will be supporting this particular amendment moved by the Australian Greens. I do note that it has been slightly updated, and I appreciate the explanation in relation to the tightening of the actual drafting. The amendment, as Senator Shoebridge has stated, expands the powers of the inspector, but, importantly, the expansion is in line with the recommendations of former New South Wales ICAC inspector Bruce McClintock. Again, when you actually look at the amended provision, it clearly sets out what the functions of the inspector are, and, given that the inspector does provide an essential function in ensuring that the National Anti-Corruption Commission operates lawfully and fairly, the coalition, as I indicated, will be supporting this amendment. 18:57 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise in support of this amendment. I'm very pleased that this amendment has been proposed. I think a major theme coming from the hearings conducted by the joint select committee is the question that was first put by the Roman philosopher and poet Juvenal, which is 'Who watches the watchmen?' And the answer, under this legislation, is the inspector. The inspector is the authority who has the role of making sure that the commissioner and people within the commission don't go off the rails. We heard quite a bit of evidence from a number of jurisdictions about areas where other commissions have not acted as one would have hoped. In this case, by having a strong inspector, I think we maximise the opportunity to make sure that the NACC operates in the way that we all expect it to operate. There are two other quick points I'd like to make. I'd like to echo the gratitude that was expressed to Mr Bruce McClintock KC, who took the time to make a very detailed submission to the joint select committee and gave some very passionate evidence and testimony which I found very convincing and I think other members of the committee found very convincing. The last point I want to make is that, just as it's important that the NACC itself is provided with sufficient funding, it is important that the inspector is provided with sufficient funding. I think the first iteration of this bill, which has been substantially enhanced through the parliamentary processes, was underdone. It was underdone in terms of both the role of the inspector and how it was envisaged that the inspector would be resourced. I think we had very compelling testimony from the Victorian inspectorate that we actually need adequate resources for the inspector, as we need for the NACC. So I'm very pleased to see this amendment come before the Senate. 18:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales As Dr Seuss would say, 'Oh the jobs people work at!' We need a B-watch watcher, and that's what the inspector is here to do—to be the watcher and keep an eye on the operations of the NACC, going forward. It's an important integrity measure for the NACC. It's one of the measures that I hope that we can agree to so as to provide longevity for the NACC and ensure ongoing public confidence in the NACC. I thank members for their contributions. Question agreed to. 19:00 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This should be fairly straightforward and non-contentious. I move Greens amendment number (10) on sheet 1714 revised: (10) Clause 241, page 203 (after line 25), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) A person must not be appointed as the Commissioner if the person is or has been a member of: (a) the Parliament of the Commonwealth; or (b) the Parliament of a State; or (c) the legislature of a Territory. This amendment provides that a person must not be appointed as the commissioner if the person is or has been a member of the parliament of the Commonwealth, the parliament of a state or the legislature of a territory. The main job of the NACC will be to keep an eye on politicians. Of course, public servants and third parties and some people in corporate Australia who might be seeking to improperly influence politicians and the Commonwealth need to be under the purview and observation of the NACC. But one of the critical jobs of the NACC will be to keep an eye on politicians. We should not, and we must not, appoint a politician to keep an eye on politicians. That's what this provision says. It's one of those cases where justice not only needs to be done but needs to be seen to be done. If the public see the government appointing a politician to keep an eye on politicians, that will inevitably undermine the integrity of the NACC. We believe this amendment is important. We believe that it supports the longevity of the NACC and public support for the NACC, because at the end of the day, we don't want police investigating police and we don't want politicians investigating politicians. 19:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Shoebridge for his amendment. The proposed nominees for appointment to the roles of commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector would be subject to transparent and merit based appointment processes and statutory eligibility criteria, as well as approval by the parliamentary joint committee. This would ensure that appoints are subject to appropriate oversight and that the recommended candidates for these important roles have the confidence of the parliament. It would be unlikely that a former member of parliament would be suitable for appointment as a commissioner. However, while this is not a qualification, it does not need to be an immediate disqualification. It is unnecessary for the bill to be amended to rule out this possibility, and therefore, the government does not support this amendment. 19:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I note the comments made by the minister. In the same regard, the coalition will not be supporting this particular amendment. The coalition believes that the position of the commissioner must be open to the most qualified and eminent person who applies. 19:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales One of the reasons we need a NACC is that there are too many jobs for the boys. People cycle in and out of politics and corporate Australia. One moment they are the minister; the next moment they're a lobbyist for the defence industry. One moment they're the Treasurer or the finance minister, and the next moment they're working for one of the major merchant banks. Surely, when it comes to the NACC, we can agree that at least in this one place there shouldn't be jobs for the boys, that there shouldn't be a revolving door that takes you from politics into the NACC. Surely, we can agree on that. Question negatived. 19:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move amendment (1) on sheet 1763: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 3 to 11), to be opposed. Briefly: this amendment ensures that all parts of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 will be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Given the extraordinary powers of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, we believe that it is important that decisions are subject to review in the same way as any other administrative decisions made by government bodies. 19:05 Senator WA 245759 Queensland TT (—) (): Thanks, Senator Cash, for your amendment. We did discuss this earlier in the day, but just to put the government's position on the record: we will not be supporting this amendment. The consequential bill provides that decisions relating to the commencement of an investigation or inquiry, and intermediary or procedural steps by the commission on the way to reaching its findings, would not be subject to judicial review. This is appropriate, to ensure that the commission's statutory functions are not undermined and delayed as a result of lengthy litigation at each interlocutory step of an investigation, and that investigations and inquiries can be conducted in a timely manner. A person may still seek judicial review of these intermediary or procedural decisions under the Judiciary Act 1903, or in the High Court's original jurisdiction. The government, as I said, does not support this amendment. 19:06 Se 169119 New South Wales nator SHOEBRIDGE () (): For the reasons actually articulated by the minister, the Greens won't be supporting the amendment either. If this amendment from the opposition got up, it would tie the NACC down in endless disputation and legal challenges under the ADJR act. That would largely be done by the powerful, the well-resourced corporations and individuals who we want the NACC to hold to account. It would produce endless legal challenges, delay to the work of the NACC and would largely cruel the ability of the NACC to do its job. Question agreed to. National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, as amended, agreed to; National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 agreed to. National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, reported with amendments; National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 reported without amendments. Third Reading 78 19:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Before I call Senator Cash, I ask for order in the chamber, please. If you could take your congratulations outside, that would be appreciated. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 78

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022

Second Reading 78 19:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure, Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. What we have before us today is a bill that in the very short time which we have had to examine it as the Senate, has been exposed as an absolute shambles. Those on the other side don't seem to understand that governments do not create jobs. Employers do. Businesses do. Industry does. What governments do is put in place frameworks under which employers have to operate. In relation to the bill that we currently have before us, let's look at what the job creators of Australia have to say. As at 27 November—all of two days ago—this is what the Australian Industry Group had to say: The late night deal between Senator Pocock and the Federal Government means Australian industry now faces an industrial relations system riddled with conflict, complexity and uncertainty. The deal as it stands does not remove the core concerns for industry … … … … We now face the prospect of more strikes and fewer jobs. There has been no modelling on any economic benefit of the legislation, only the vague hope that employers with an industrial gun to their head will pay more and somehow not pass costs onto consumers or reduce their headcount. Let's now look at what the other job creator, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in relation to this bill but two days ago: Unfortunately, this Bill still puts Australian jobs and businesses at risk. It is fundamentally flawed and simply cannot be improved through the amendments that are now proposed. In our view it is not fit for passage. The Minerals Council of Australia said: The Minerals Council of Australia remains concerned that Government's proposed amendments to the Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation … do not go far enough in addressing industry concerns about the unintended impact of the bill. The Business Council of Australia had this to say: This is a huge economic risk and there is no evidence multi-employer bargaining will lift wages. In fact, we remain concerned that this fundamentally flawed bill could make things much worse. … … … At a time of global economic uncertainty, skyrocketing inflation and a global cost of living crisis, Australia has almost full employment and wages are beginning to strengthen, why are we taking this risk? Peter Strong, formerly of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, said: One of Labor's election promises for small business—now a broken promise—was to 'draw on Labor's history of working with unions, workers and industry to deliver better outcomes with settings that are simpler, more accessible, and fair'. The opposite of that is happening. What we have is a bill. We have said what the job creators of this country think about it. That is what the job creators of this country think about Labor's extreme industrial relations legislation. Let's now contrast that with what John Setka, the head of the most militant union in Australia, the CFMMEU, has to say about the bill. Senator Scarr 282997 What did he say? Senator CASH I0M This is what he said, Senator Scarr, as reported in the Australian newspaper: Writing recently to members, the union's Victorian secretary John Setka … said he was 'impressed' by Burke's move to scrap the ABCC and the building code. 'Without going the early crow, I'm hoping that this government is going to be different (from the Rudd-Gillard governments) and from what I've seen so far I'm quietly confident,' Setka wrote. 'Our next EBA negotiations are now not going to be restricted to shit clauses and we will have the power to go after the non-union sites …' There we have it. At least Mr Setka, the head of the most militant union in Australia, who is about to be handed back the building and construction industry on a silver platter, is being honest, unlike Mr Burke and Mr Albanese, who refuse to listen to those people who represent the employers in Australia and who say this bill will not have the effect that the Australian Labor Party says it will. It gets worse the more we discover about this bill and how it was formulated. It has actually gone from completely absurd to a complete farce. Why do I say that? Let's look at the discoveries in relation to the costs that are going to be imposed on businesses: the bargaining tax that is Mr Albanese and the Australian Labor Party's Christmas present to the employers of Australia. The costs were revealed quite recently in this bill's regulation impact statement. We've learnt that the bargaining costs this government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will impose on small businesses is a Christmas present of $14½ thousand or thereabouts. For medium businesses. let's not forget that the cost that was included in the regulation impact statement is actually not the correct cost, because they made a mistake in the calculation. Senator Scarr 282997 Couldn't do the math! Senator I0M They said it was—they couldn't do the math—around $75,000. We now know it's actually $80,000, and for large businesses it's $94,000. But it gets better. The contempt that the Albanese government has for job creators in this country was on display in the exposure that there is a $5,000 error in the costs that were calculated for medium-sized businesses. That cost is now $5,000 higher. It is an $80,000 bargaining tax when they are roped into multi-employer bargaining. But it gets worse, because what did the Minister for Small Business actually call this mistake? She said it was essentially a typo. Quite frankly, that could only come from a minister representing the Australian Labor Party. Why do I say that? Because blind Freddie can tell you that $5,000 is not a typo when it is an increased cost that is going to be borne by the job creators of this country, by any business currently above 15 employees. So for a business with 16 employees—say, a cafe in Sydney—that's $5,000, and it's a typo? Quite frankly, that is treating those who are going to be paying the Albanese government's bargaining tax with contempt. It gets worse. One would have thought that you couldn't get worse than a $5,000 mistake that is going to cost business, but it does get worse. When we explore how the department, working with the Australian Labor Party, the government, came up with the costs that are going to be borne by business, we find that, rather than consult—God forbid you should consult, because if you consult you get told by the job creators in this country: 'This bill will only lead to more strikes and less jobs. This bill will not have the intended effect that the Albanese government says it does.' Why bother consulting when you can actually turn to Mr Google. Footnote 70 in the regulation impact statement says the department used an article entitled, and I assume this was the Google search term, 'How much should I charge as a consultant in Australia', from a website named authentic.com.au, to calculate this cost. Anyone from business listening into this should know that this is how the author of the article, Benjamin J Harvey, is described on the website: 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. You have to be kidding me. That is the source the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations used, signed off by Minister Burke's office, as the relevant source to work out the costs that should be imposed on business. I asked the department, at a very quick hearing into this, what industrial relations bargaining experience any of these people have. Oops, there was none. That is the contempt that the Albanese government has for the job creators of Australia. You thought it couldn't get worse. Well, it does. Let's go to page 42 of the regulation impact statement of Mr Burke and Anthony Albanese, our Prime Minister. It refers to an article entitled—yet another Mr Google search term—'How much do payroll services cost?' You couldn't speak to a small business, you couldn't speak to ACCI, you couldn't speak to Ai Group, you couldn't speak to COSBOA. Why would you do that? Because you might be told what it really costs, as opposed to what the website bark.com tells you. Bark.com is an interesting website. It lists its most popular services as 'dog and pet grooming, dog training, dog walking, life coaching, limousine hire, magicians and private investigators'. You actually cannot make this up, because this is what appears in a regulatory impact statement from the Anthony Albanese Labor government in relation to the most fundamental changes that we are making, or will be made, to our industrial relations system in decades. Instead of consulting with the job creators of this country, this government holds them in contempt and uses the Google search engine: 'How much should I charge as a consultant in Australia?' and 'How much do payroll services cost?' Senator CASH I0M And they're wrong. That is actually right, Senator Brockman, because we actually asked the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 'Could you actually tell us what a more realistic cost is?' The department came up with $175 per hour with their little Google search. ACCI says, 'Using the government’s own methodology, but with a far more accurate minimum market rate of $438 per hour'! Let's now look at what the government doesn't want businesses in Australia to know, because guess what? Your bargaining tax that's about to be imposed on you by Mr Albanese has just increased—between $19,574 and $23,684 for a small business, between $107,344 and $129,880 for a medium business and between $126,307 and $152,824 for a large business. These are significant costs. These are significant costs that this appalling bill will impose on businesses of this country. There's a reason the government didn't consult. It's because this legislation is all about creating conflict in workplaces, stopping businesses from negotiating pay and conditions with their own employees and basically handing over decision-making to a centralised umpire. Labor have made it very clear in this bill that they want to hand over Australian workplaces to unions, including small and family businesses. Employers have said multi-employer bargaining will dramatically increase the number of strikes across the economy. We all want higher wages, but there is no evidence because there has not been any modelling done in relation to this bill that the reforms will deliver higher wages. In fact, when Senator Pocock was asked, 'Did the government, in doing the deal with you, guarantee that wages would increase?', Senator Pocock had to say that there is no guarantee that wages will increase. So, in other words, based on all the comments from employers, the evidence is the opposite. The evidence from the government is: no modelling has been done. I put to the department: Whose wages will increase? They couldn't tell me. When will wages start to increase? They couldn't tell me. And by how much will wages start to increase? Again, they couldn't tell me. When the job creators of this country stand united and say to the Prime Minister that this bill will only lead to more strikes and job losses, it will allow unions into small business—and they have never had to deal with unions before—it will potentially hold up wage rises because of increased complexity and delays, it will undermine competition so Australians have fewer choices but face higher costs, it will force up prices and increase the cost of living and it will unfairly target small businesses because they do not have the resources to deal with this type of legislation you'd actually think you'd quietly pull the legislation and listen to the job creators of this country. But that's not what the Labor government does. Time is short, unfortunately. I would like to talk about the fact that also in this bill I feel very sorry for the construction industry, because they will shortly be handed, on the silver platter, back to John Setka and the most militant union in Australia. The government ignores all businesses. Why? Because it's not about the job creators of this country. Quite frankly, it is only about the Albanese Labor government repaying their union pay masters. All I can say is shame on them. 19:24 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to support the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. There is much to like in this bill. It helps to deal with some of our big work challenges. It makes a good start, and there is more to do. We've heard a lot about how the sky will fall if this bill is passed. This is the world spruiked by those opposite, as we just heard, and on the front page of the Australian—the world of backward-looking employer organisations and old-time IR club warriors fighting the workplace battles of last century. It is a world of opponents of reform, of hired advocates and consultants singing from very old song sheets, spruiking alarmism about the catastrophe of multi-enterprise bargaining and the imminent collapse of small business. This mob are re-running the IR debate of 30 years ago, and their lines are tired. Out there in the real world of work, things are different. The issues are not strike action or enterprise bargaining. 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, will I ever get another one? And how will I pay for child care or rent if I don't get a pay rise?' So many Australian businesses right now cannot find the workers they need because those workers cannot get the child care or the flexibility they need. If the roads that get us to work every day were failing like this, keeping people away from work, a national emergency would be declared. We'd have a critical road-to-work infrastructure program, worth billions, very fast. The failures of our work system are a failure of critical infrastructure and a failure of outdated labour law. Yet, led by the opponents of this bill, our shouty, blokey, labour law debate—if we can dignify it with that title—is awash with alarm about the possibility of horrors like more collective bargaining. We need reform of our labour law, but it needs to leave behind the tired old preoccupations and myths of business collapse and instead recognise the reality of work now. We are not in 1950. We do not have a wife at home. We are in a different world, where half of workers are women—most of them carers; where a third of workers are insecurely employed; where only 13 per cent of workers are covered by enterprise agreements; where union density is now at 14 per cent; where our underinvestment in the infrastructure of work, like child care, has created a workforce shortage crisis; where undervaluation of jobs in the care economy means early childhood educators, teachers, nurses and aged-care workers are voting with their feet and leaving jobs they love; and where so many workers have no say over their rosters and have to choose between care for their kids and getting a pay packet. Australia's workplace relations system is broken. It is built for the workplace and workers of the last century, not this one. It is built for someone who can work a standard working week when our lives are no longer standard. It is not the 1950s. It is not even the 1980s. Most of us hold down a job over our life cycle and have kids who need our support, as any parent who has parented a teenager knows, not for a few years but for decades. In an ageing population we have older parents and friends who also need our care. We need a labour law that has our back as we put together our jobs and our care. We need a labour law that does not make insecurity the absence of paid holidays or sick leave, and low pay and unpredictable working time the price of being a mother or a father. We need a labour law that does not reward a lifetime of working and caring with an old age of poverty. We need to ensure that the paid workers who do the work in our care system, in early childhood education and care, aged care, respite care and disability care—the people who enable so many others to get to work—are paid decently, with jobs that enable them to both work and care. Our IR system needs a complete reset. It is not fit for purpose. Australian workers are enduring real wage falls despite historic profit levels. Too many are working casually—25 per cent of our workforce, young people, women, migrants. Too many workers are on a perpetual cycle of limited-term contracts that get rolled over every year or every few months with no pay certainty and no career. The gig economy is growing very fast. It's now over 250,000 workers with no job security, no access to safe work and no predictability in terms of pay and hours. As things stand in Australia, our army of five million working carers, most of us over our life course, and 40 per cent of all workers that work on any day of the week in Australia are contorting themselves around outdated labour law unsuited to the world out there. In too many workplaces wage theft is real. It is robbery. It needs to be outlawed with a criminal penalty. Unpaid overtime is common. The average Australian now works six weeks of unpaid extra hours every year. Our workplace is now on the phone, in our handbag or in our back pocket, and it's in vigorous competition with the rest of our lives, especially if we have to stay sweet with the boss to keep our shifts or to get a promotion. A right to disconnect from work when the paid hours that we are paid to do are finished is a remote possibility but a real need for so many Australians. New technologies that promised freedom and a shorter working week have instead tethered too many workers to their phones and their laptops, extending the length of the working week but without pay. A proud nation that led the world on shortening the working week in 1856 with the eight-hour day is now going the wrong way, with long hours for many and no sign of the four-day week promised by new technology and productivity increases. The productivity gains of recent years have flown straight to profits, with a wages system which has made it too hard for workers to bargain collectively to get a pay rise—unless, of course, you happen to be in the executive class where wages have accelerated obscenely in recent years, leaving ordinary Australian workers far, far behind. When the Keating Labor government introduced enterprise bargaining in 1991 with the accord mark VII, many women, including myself, said it would not work for women, it would not work for the low paid and it would not work for whole industries that had no elaborate working conditions or lengthy classification structures to compress or trade-off for a pay rise, and so it has proved. It was an enterprise bargaining system that suited more powerful workers and male dominated industries, but it failed women, it failed the low paid and it failed young people. Thirty years on it has run its course. We have reaped what the Keating Labor government sewed, along with the fruit of successful Liberal government workplace reforms that have stripped back working conditions, accelerated an epidemic of job insecurity, seen real wages fall and stalled the gender pay gap. This system, with its failed regulation piled on failed regulation, has now failed most workers. It is rife with secrecy about pay. It has seen the introduction of repressive anti-union machinery, like the ABCC and the ROC, built to create a punitive anti-union regime that stops unionists from doing their jobs and stops workers from being able to join their unions. In my state, South Australia, only five per cent of workers are now covered by collective agreements. Most Australian workers have to wait for a national minimum wage increase to get a pay rise and they are falling behind. We need a return to a more collective arrangement that sets decent liveable wages and conditions, not a bare minimum that leaves too many in working poverty. We need to make it easier for undervalued occupations, women's jobs like childhood educators, to get better pay that recognises their skills and their experience. Too many workers now cannot predict their rosters of work—not next week, not tomorrow. They are nervous about refusing a shift or about asking for flexibility. Their employers can put them on minimum hour contracts of, say, 10 hours and then every week give them an extra 15 hours without any penalty rates for their extra time, and no guarantee they can truly rely on those hours into the future. How can they organise care for their kids or a housing loan? Roster injustice is rife in our workplaces and it must be fixed. We Greens have pushed hard from the very beginning of this process of reform to get some long-standing Greens' policies reflected in labour law. I'm pleased that Labor heard us and built some of them in. This bill will help lift the pay of the lowest paid. With new Fair Work Commission objects of job security and gender equality, and new panels, the commission can more easily act to revalue care jobs that are underpaid. It removes the anti-union devices of the ABCC and the ROC. It takes step to abolish endless limited-term contracts. Most importantly, we have worked very hard to ensure that the better off overall test continues to protect workers; that no-one falls through any cracks in the BOOT; that it protects the most disadvantaged, including retail and hospital workers, indeed all workers. The bill puts an end to corrosive pay secrecy—the enemy of fairness and of gender pay equity—and it offers improved prevention of sexual harassment and better prevention of discrimination around breastfeeding and gender identity. Importantly, the bill, with our amendments, fixes the anomaly that left just two of the 11 National Employment Standards—the right to request flexibility or to ask for an extension of unpaid parental leave—without any enforcement mechanism. What do you call a labour law without enforcement? A failed gesture. We have the evidence on this. Around five in 10 Australian workers would like to ask their bosses for flexibility, and around two in 10 do ask, and they get what they want. There are a further three in 10 who would like to ask and who don't. They are fearful about the culture in their workplace and the stigma that will arise from asking. The existing unenforced right to request flexibility made no difference to that statistic. This bill fixes that, and it has long been Greens policy. We know that Australian workers need this flexibility, and they need more. So we will move amendments to widen eligibility for the right to request flexibility. This right should be available to all employees, not just those with narrowly defined family responsibilities. It is only when seeking flexibility is something that is available to all that the stigma will be removed from asking for it, and we will see more men seeking flexibility and, hopefully, sharing domestic and care responsibilities as a result. Wider eligibility for flexibility has been adopted in the UK on clear evidence about its value, and guess what? The sky has not fallen. We will also move amendments to establish a positive duty in favour of creating flexible workplaces in Australia. A modern workplace should create an environment that actively anticipates the needs of workers and doesn't require individuals to have to push for it, one by one. We will move an amendment that allows the Fair Work Commission to deal with employers who unfairly deny a request for an extension of unpaid parental leave. This will support parents in taking the time they need to care for their child. It's an important step forward alongside other important steps, like an increase in paid parental leave. We will also move an amendment to increase the minimum wage to ensure that all workers have a meaningful living wage. Our amendment aims to establish a new minimum wage, at 60 per cent of the median wage. This is based on international best practice. It will lift the minimum wage—so important in the current cost-of-living crisis. Australian workers need improved workplace laws, laws that deal with 21st-century life and work. The job of reform is not over. There is more to do. The Greens want to see all workers get paid sick leave and holiday leave. The pandemic has shown us how important sick leave is, and anyone who works for a year, whether casual or permanent, should get a chance for rest and recuperation. New Zealand has done this; we should do it too. We also need to see improved job security. Casual work should not be endemic. It should only exist where work is genuinely casual, intermittent or seasonal. We must protect the rights of gig workers, we must criminalise wage theft and we should improve roster justice. Workers need a right to disconnect from the technologies which tie them to work when their paid hours are done. They should not be doing six weeks unpaid work every year. We've made an important start on reforming Australia's labour law to make it fit for the current century and the kinds of workers that are at work in our workforce. It's an important and valuable set of changes. We'll be back. We want to see real change on other pressing work issues of our century, but this is an important, positive step to begin. 19:38 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. Labor's proposed workplace changes represent the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades. The Albanese government's new IR laws blatantly provide unions with the tools to show their workplace muscle. In my home state of South Australia, union demands and bullying are already rattling businesses and threatening investment and growth, particularly in the construction industry. In South Australia, the construction industry is a major employer of nearly 75,000 people. That's equivalent to 8.6 per cent of the total workforce and it contributed $8 billion to gross state product in 2021. Total construction work in 2021 in South Australia was valued at $14.5 billion, equivalent to 6.5 per cent of all construction work carried out in Australia. This critical industry to the South Australian economy is being put at risk by this IR bill, which is turning investment and developers off financing building and infrastructure projects that employ many hundreds of South Australians. Among the developers to voice concerns is well-known Adelaide property developer Theo Maras, founder and chairman of Maras Group. He raised the risk to millions of dollars in investment and scores of jobs. His next project, the Rymill, a $27 million, 16-storey apartment complex, could be unviable amid instability and uncertainty in the sector. He isn't anti-union, but has said that a lower-cost state, such as South Australia, cannot compete with the eastern state wages and conditions as demanded by the CFMMEU. Already, the CFMMEU is spending tens of thousands of their members' money to wrap an Adelaide tram completely in the CFMMEU slogan, 'A union of opportunity'. Their membership drive is up and running absolutely in South Australia. Trade union membership Australia-wide has been in a decades-long decline; it stands at 14 per cent nationally and 14.1 per cent in South Australia, as outlined in the latest ABS stats. We heard in Senate estimates that union membership will likely rise with the passing of this bill. Labor says that they stand for regulation, transparency and women, but not, it seems, when it relates to its union paymasters. Recently, in the Senate Education and Employment Committee, a union aligned think tank organisation, Per Capita, told us that it draws the line at accepting donations from the CFMMEU because of its treatment of women. And yet Labor dances with them when it suits. Let me demonstrate the hypocrisy: during the SA state election, the Labor Party accepted and then later returned a donation of some $125,000 from the CFMMEU. This is bad for the economy. Master Builders SA has outlined that workers were being intimidated to join the CFMMEU, while builders were being pressured to agree to pay deals that could send them broke. Business SA, the Australian Industry Group, the Motor Industry Association SA/NT, the SA Wine Industry Association and the Australian Hotels Association have raised concerns over this legislation. Business told those opposite their concerns and yet they were ignored. At a time when businesses are struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs, this is yet another impost. There is nothing in the government's plan for the cost of living for Australians, let alone for businesses that employ them. Multi-employer bargaining will force employers to bargain with other businesses, who may even be competitors because they are deemed to be of common interest or reasonably comparable. We heard some outrageous examples of the potential to be caught by this legislation, with other businesses that might seemingly be similar but which are significantly different. We all want higher wages in Australia, but there's no evidence that the IR reforms proposed by this bill will deliver higher wages or even higher productivity. In fact, based on comments from employers—the people who employ Australians, remember, not the unions and or the government—the evidence is quite the opposite. Earlier this month in my home of Adelaide, a group of union workers launched industrial action against a South Australian based crane company, vowing not to fold until they received a pay rise and better conditions. That type of behaviour is not conducive to constructive negotiations in any responsible way. Abolishing the ABCC does not help that. It was claimed that the union rejected a 16 per cent pay rise, instead demanding a pay rise of 25 per cent. The crane service employs 78 people. And if you think that the Senator Pocock deal doesn't make this bad build better then think again. These minor amendments will do nothing to allay the concerns of small, medium and family businesses across Australia and in my home state of South Australia. Changing the definition of a small business from one with fewer than 15 employees to one with fewer than 20 goes nowhere near far enough and still includes casuals. The other suggested amendments are minor and have no real impact on the overall bill. But let me tell you what we understand is the impact. This bill could affect 350,000 South Australians who work in the 145,000 small businesses in South Australia. The Albanese government's own modelling shows that small and medium businesses will have to pay between $14,000 and $80,000 in bargaining costs because of these industrial relations changes. There is a basic calculation error by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in the regulatory impact statement, which means the bargaining costs for medium business will be $5,000 higher than documented. That error means that medium-size business will pay over $80,000 when roped into multi-employer bargaining, rather than the $75,148 figure quoted in the document. We know that the Labor Party doesn't have regard for business or the jobs it creates. But surely it must have been important to get the numbers right. This bill, in the very short time we've had to examine it, has been exposed as an absolute shambles, hastily conceived, designed only for their union paymasters. The coalition senators' dissenting report is the most accurate portrayal of this bill and what it will do to Australian businesses and the people employed by them. This dissenting report recommends that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is not passed by the Senate. The Albanese government apologised to the Australian people for promising that industry-wide bargaining was not part of our policy before the election and then attempted to legislate it by stealth once elected. Australians deserve an apology for that. Labor speaks of equality and of supporting women back into the workforce, yet this IR bill will impact negatively, mostly on women. According to Workforce Gender Equality Agency data, women represent almost 57 per cent of the retail workforce across the nation. They account for 68 per cent of sales assistants, 75 per cent of checkout operators and cashiers, and 58 per cent of retail supervisors. Retail told us about the likely impact of this bill. Women control 75 per cent of consumer spending, according to the Australian Retailers Association, and with their jobs gone the impact on family incomes will be dramatic and will only add to the cost-of-living pressures they are already experiencing. This is not what Australians or their employers need. 19:48 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. We have no evidence that this legislation will result in more secure employment or improved wages. But it has served as a good indication of how the Albanese government will conduct itself in this parliament in the future. It will cave into union bosses and rush through bad laws that will undo years of painstaking work by the parliament to improve Australia's economic productivity. Labor may have won this year's election, but the result was definitely not a mandate for the regressive measures in this legislation. In fact, this bill goes against the only mandate that truly exists for industrial relations laws, the 2016 double-dissolution election triggered by bills to establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. Those bills were the subject of months if not years of inquiry, debate and negotiation and were taken to the Australian people at an election. In the last parliament, the most recent amendments to the Fair Work Act were the subject of inquiries lasting at least 3½ months.. On this occasion, however, only three weeks were given to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee to inquire into the bill. This was during budget estimates. As a result, public hearings were held at very short notice and witnesses who appeared did not even have time to make their submissions. Labor was announcing amendments to its own legislation while this inquiry was taking place. Today, following only a few days of cursory scrutiny and limited debate, this parliament seems likely to pass a poorly drafted bill with unjustified haste and no electoral mandate. I am compelled to remind the government of something which should be obvious but which apparently escapes them: a person's wage cannot increase if they do not have a wage. That's what this rushed bill is risking. That the corrupt thugs masquerading as union bosses want this bill very badly is all the evidence we need that it's a very bad bill. They're looking forward to returning to the bad old days when they could hold businesses and economic productivity to ransom over trivial issues like a worker not being up to date with union fees. The ABCC prevented a lot of that and now we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. It's pretty obvious this legislation is, ultimately, just a ploy to gain more union members and, therefore, more money for the Australian Labor Party. Don't think for a moment we've forgotten previous attempts by Labor governments to do this—for example, the farce that was the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. At one stage last week, I held out some hope that Labor would slow things down and allow the Senate due time to consider the implications of this bill and make it better. There was some hope that the really awful parts of the bill—like multi-employer bargaining, the poor definition of 'small business', the attempt to decouple productivity from wages and measures to force small business into crippling enterprise agreements they have no part in negotiating—could have been separated. But, no, Labor had to had everything passed before Christmas and successfully gambled on pressuring a rookie crossbench senator into letting it happen. Senator Pocock was only saying a few days ago that much more time was needed to review this omnibus bill, but he has rolled over for a couple of trivial and, ultimately, useless concessions. Senator Pocock gave his word to other crossbenchers that we would stand together and demand that the more contentious parts of this bill be split from it and considered separately without undue haste. That hasn't happened. There's an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, with Senator Pocock telling readers that he wrote 'DWYSYWD' in his rugby locker. It stands for: 'Do what you say you will do.' I'll repeat it: 'Do what you say you will do.' That wasn't the case, was it? That hasn't happened, 'Doormat' Dave's word means nothing. My chief concern— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Excuse me, Senator Hanson. Senator Bilyk. Senator Bilyk HZB Point of order: I think senators need to be referred to by their title, not by nicknames put upon them by other members of the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Hanson, please refer to colleagues by their correct title. Thank you. Senator HANSON BK6 My chief concern is that this bill is going to drive up costs for the small businesses which can least afford it. There's been no meaningful consultation with the small business sector. At a briefing on the bill last week, I was provided with a lot of detail about extensive consultations with at least 50 unions and a handful of large employer groups, like the Minerals Council. There were about 50 conversations with the unions—probably in total with about eight to 10 different union groups. Who knows? It might have been more. But the unions got through the Fair Work Commission's door rather than small business or even big business, so it was high on their agenda to hear what they had to say. When I asked the Fair Work Commission about which small businesses they had met with, they couldn't answer me. They couldn't give me the names of them. I even asked the general manager—and everyone on the board—if they'd ever run a small business or worked in one. His answer was that he had always been a public servant—in other words, no, he had never run a business, never employed staff and had no idea what it was like. I have run my own small businesses—plumbing, farming, food processing and, of course, my fish-and-chip shop, for 10 years, as a single parent. I also grew up in a small business for the first 16 years of my life. So small business has been part of my life for most of my life. Most of the people in this place have never run a small business or employed staff, so the fact is: you have no idea the impact that you're going to have on businesses out there. It's a two-way street, whether you're an employee or an employer. They go hand in hand. In speaking to small businesses over the past few months, it's very clear they're struggling with the consequences of inflation as much as, if not more than, Australian households are. They are experiencing big increases in operating costs, insurance premiums, rents and government taxes or rates. So many of these small businesses have been established by owners with capital raised from credit or from mortgaging their homes, so they too are feeling the bite of rising interest rates. This is what people have to consider. They all go out there and think, 'We should have part of the profits.' You know what? If you want part of the profits, then go and take out a loan, put yourself in mortgage up to the hilt, mortgage your home, and you can run your own small business as much as you want to, and you can get the profits. We don't live in a communist country. We live in a democratic society. This bill is just dictating what the workers should have. That's communism. That's socialism. That's what this is about. You think that one business over another business—you're tying it all in. If it's a like-minded business—and you haven't really explained that in itself. What's a like-minded business? You're saying enterprise bargaining. If you really are serious about this, then you should look at the state and federal awards. That's what you should do. Raise the state and federal awards. You don't tell businesses, private enterprise, that they must bargain as far as everything else. It's plus, plus, plus. No-one has bothered to actually ask the question: can businesses afford it? You have never asked that question. Can businesses afford it? I'm all for the worker and the inflation rights and looking after the worker—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. But you are pushing it from one side. This is the unions. This is about unionisation. It's about the unions getting into businesses and it's about the unions signing up more people, because you've only got about 13 or 14 per cent of Australians who are part of the unions. So that's what this is all about—nothing more than that. The businesses are having difficulties sourcing skilled Australian workers, and their productivity is falling as a result. They're also now required to pay out up to 10 days of domestic violence leave, thanks to this government—another added cost of business. This bill does nothing about these issues and in fact places yet more costs on small businesses, which are ultimately being passed on to the consumers. We should not be pushing small businesses to take on more costs to fund enterprise bargaining. This increases inflation, not wages, and threatens jobs rather than makes them more secure. Also missing from this debate is the fact that, if higher wages are forced upon small businesses, they will face increased payroll tax from greedy state governments. Have you considered that? Have you considered that, if you're going to increase wages on small businesses, then their payroll tax is going to go up? For what? If you had any common sense, that's what you would address. You'd actually work with the state governments to get rid of payroll tax so that the employers could employ more people without being fined with a tax. For what? Because they employ people? What a stupid tax it is. You've done absolutely nothing about that. If you had any common sense you'd deal with the payroll tax before you start telling businesses what to do. This bill should never have been introduced without a serious discussion with the states about reducing payroll tax. One Nation cannot and will not support this bill. And why I ask the bureaucrats—wonderful bureaucrats, know everything, read it in the textbooks, learnt it from universities—come in here and start telling the ministers, who don't even know their own jobs and then start going along with everything the bureaucrats say. What should have happened with this whole thing is a sensible debate and a consultation process to understand it, because you have not proven to me that there is going to be an increase in wages. You have not proven your point here. And that's what it's all about. The mining industry should never have been tied up in this. Most of the mining industry pay above the award wages with anyone to do with this Fair Work. It's ill thought out. You've got a rookie senator who's going to go along with you, who doesn't understand, who was not part of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which One Nation was. For three months we debated this. In the consultation that went on we investigated, we spoke to businesses and we spoke to unions. We spoke to everyone. And now with the ABCC being abolished, the thuggery that goes on in these construction industries due to the unions. Small businesses were going under because if they didn't join the union and pay their $5,000 fee they couldn't unload the concrete and it hardened and they lost a truckload of concrete. Unions go in and commit thuggery. These building construction sites faced increased costs of about 30 per cent because of the union thuggery that was going on. That stopped under the ABCC, so it's going to be quite interesting what happens in Australia when this passes under Labor. And I wonder if some people are going to say whether they got it right or whether they got it wrong. It frustrates me no end that the Labor Party relies on the unions for its funding and for its donations. And have a look at who's on your benches—all union reps. Most of you are from the unions. You have been part of the unions and you move up through the ranks of the unions and you all end up here in parliament. It's a great pathway for people from unions to end up in this place! It's not the union members I'm having a go at. I'm having a go at the union bosses. You're pushing this bill because of your own self-interest and your own self-gains to end up on the benches here in this place. What frustrates me is that the general populous are going to be the ones who will suffer because of this ill-thought-out bill brought before this parliament. One Nation calls for sensible measures to address the rising costs of living and the rising costs of doing business, such as tax reform, welfare reform and especially immigration reform. We call for this legislation to be thrown out into the rubbish bin where it belongs. 20:03 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania There's no doubt that Australia is in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. For Australian households, basic costs like rent, mortgage repayments, electricity, child care and GP services are going through the roof. Whoever would have thought that Hobart would have the highest rentals in Australia? Everyone knows that we inherited this crisis from the previous government, but now that they're in opposition they have the temerity to demand that we instantly fix the mess that they created. If the opposition continue on their current course then it raises the question: what is their plan to get wages moving again? The fact is, they have none—zilch, zero, nothing. When those opposite have abandoned any commitment to real wage growth then they have zero credibility when it comes to talking about cost-of-living pressures. When they were in government they presided over record low wages growth. They refused to support an increase in the minimum wage for Australia's lowest paid workers. We saw an explosion under the previous government of insecure forms of work such as labour hire and contracting, even in the Public Service. Those opposite stood idly by while gig economy workers were mercilessly underpaid and exploited. Who could ever forget the former finance minister admitting that low wages were 'a deliberate economic policy'? Those opposite admitted proudly and unequivocally that they sought to keep wages low. When those opposite cry crocodile tears about the cost-of-living pressures Australian households are facing, their words ring hollow because they have zero commitment to real wage growth—absolutely none. When enterprise bargaining is working, productivity gains are shared between business and workers. But the bargaining system is clearly broken. In the last 10 years, business profits have grown 133 per cent. And how much have wages lifted? A little over 35 per cent. So who's reaping the benefit there? After waiting 10 years for their fair share of productivity gains, workers have waited way too long for a decent pay rise. How much longer do the opposition want them to wait? Come on, give me a timeline. How much longer do you want low-paid workers to wait? To those listening, I would say: don't be fooled by all the confected outrage from those opposite on behalf of business. They do not have a monopoly on understanding the needs of business. For the benefit of Senator Hanson: I grew up in a small-business family and I've run my own business. I've also worked as a union official and negotiated agreements on behalf of workers. As a former early childhood educator, I think I can say with authority that it is one industry where wages really need to get moving. But those opposite would be happy to deny early childhood educators a pay rise. This is a prime example of an industry, dominated by female workers, where the importance of the work and the level of qualification needed to do the work is simply not reflected in the pay. I challenge anyone on that side to spend a week changing other people's babies' nappies in an early childhood education area. Any one of you: change other people's babies' nappies for a week, and see how much you think they should be paid. I can tell you: I know people, especially males, that gag at changing their own babies' nappies, let alone going in and changing other people's. You have no idea how the early childhood educators work—not a speck. Educators' pay is at complete odds with the value we place on children in their care, and it shocks me. It still shocks me that the arguments workers and their unions in that industry are making are the same arguments that I put forward when I worked in the industry more than 30 years ago. We're still having the argument, and those on that side want to block those workers from getting a pay rise. You are disgusting. As a former educator, I was pleased to hear support for the government reforms from Ms Julie Price, executive director of the Community Child Care Association. Ms Price, who represents over 750 community not-for-profit early childhood education and care centres, told the Senate inquiry into this bill that multi-employer bargaining is 'a fantastic instrument to help ensure better wages and conditions'. She said that a multi-employer agreement covering 60 early childhood education services in Victoria was of great help to small community-owned centres that 'don't necessarily have the expertise in industrial relations to be able to negotiate an agreement themselves'. Let's not forget that bargaining has benefits for business, not just for workers. For example, agreements can have a simpler set of tailored conditions when compared to the award, and businesses can negotiate productivity improvements with their workforces. It's unfortunate that others in this place have chosen not to play a constructive role, and some have effectively dealt themselves out of any meaningful engagement on shaping the provisions of this bill. Sadly, the opposition have such an ideological hatred of unions that they will oppose anything that might involve them, even if it's good for business. It's a kneejerk, almost Pavlovian, reaction, not one based on the consideration of good, decent public policy. If they don't support this bill, let the record show that Labor sought to address the pain of cost-of-living pressures by getting wages moving again while those opposite continued to stand in the way. 20:09 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. It didn't really take long, did it, for this government to resurrect the industrial relations wars of long ago under the guise of growing wages, as we've just heard? This government has undertaken, firstly, a sham process of consultation and, secondly, an extraordinarily rushed inquiry process. Despite some very strong criticism of this bill from many sectors of the economy, the government is pushing on regardless without any modelling, with no funding and, importantly, with no election mandate. This bill will cost jobs. It's going to drive down productivity, it's going to increase costs to small business and it's going to add to inflation. There is no guarantee that it's going to grow wages. Firstly, there's the consultation process. The government was motivated by pure ideology and displayed a blind disregard for the usual procedures and processes involved in the scrutiny of legislation that usually accompanies such a substantial piece of legislation, let alone an omnibus bill. Here it is: it's nearly 250 pages of legislation. The committee was given 22 days to undertake an inquiry. We all work here. It is our job to scrutinise legislation. I didn't mind the long days. I didn't mind the late nights. It's my job. But what about the stakeholders that needed to consider the bill? They needed to take the time to put some effort in, put their thoughts on paper, send that through to the committee and give time for the committee to have a read of it and then maybe form some questions that they could ask in an inquiry. We weren't given that chance at all. Despite what the government spin—and we've heard plenty of it—they did not take this significant industrial relations reform to the 2022 federal election. In November last year, the then shadow Treasurer, the member for Rankin, appeared on television. I think he was on Insiders. He was asked if industry-wide bargaining was on the agenda. The Treasurer replied, 'It's not part of our policy.' Maybe the Treasurer is not in the loop on the government's industrial relations agenda, or he was answering with a real honesty back then when he knew that the real cost of such a move would be to the Australian economy. Holding a sham talkfest like the Jobs and Skills Summit so soon after the election is not a substitute for a mandate from the Australian people for the introduction of a very radical and extreme new industrial relations reform that will—have no doubt about this—devastate the Australian economy. It was evident very early on that the depth of this bill came as a shock to many stakeholders. You only had to gauge the red-hot reaction from many sectors in the Australian economy that this bill had come like a bolt out of the blue. Some vague references about low-paid workers and female dominated sectors of the economy at the Jobs and Skills Summit are no substitute for consultation and no substitute for a mandate. They didn't demonstrate industry-wide consultation. Back on election night—sadly, and we're still living with that—when the now Prime Minister spoke about conciliation, seeking a common purpose and promoting unity, I don't think many people thought that we'd see a bill like this. Then we were given a time frame, as I discussed. Twenty-two days this committee was given. That's 22 days to consider such a comprehensive, significant bill that is overhauling the industrial relations system. I remember that we had a couple of bills in the last parliament that pale into insignificance in terms of their complexity. I was on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee at that time. We had four months. That lot over there were complaining that we only went to five capital cities for the inquiry. Senator McGrath 217241 I remember that. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 You were on it, Senator McGrath. That's right. You were the chair, and we were absolutely hauled over the coals for it. This lot gave us 22 days. The first two public hearings occurred even before the date that submissions were due. We had this ludicrous situation where we were—I'm the deputy chair of this committee, so I followed it all the way through—sitting there having people in front of us that actually hadn't had time to put in a submission. I don't blame them, because it was this government that gave them that ridiculous time frame. The fifth hearing was held—would you believe it?—on the day that the committee had to table its report. For anyone that follows this—and I don't expect people at home would necessarily get this—you can't use the evidence from a hearing until it's on Hansard. We don't get the transcript of the Hansard for a couple of days after. Thankfully, Hansard were very efficient. Thank you, Hansard. You got it to us the next day, which was fantastic. Thank you very much. We got it the next day, but that was after the report had to be in. So I just want to foreshadow at the end of my remarks here I'll actually be seeking leave to table some additional comments. Compare this, as I said, to the previous government. We gave four months for the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill and over three months for the ensuring integrity bill. What we've seen here is not proper process. They're avoiding scrutiny on this bill. They're trying to rush it through before Christmas, just so they can return to their paymasters in the unions and show that they did a good job. This is what it's about. It's about giving the unions a very large Christmas present. It was such a rushed process that, when the bill was presented in the House of Representatives, the minister who presented the bill also moved 155 amendments. Unbelievable. Has this happened? I haven't been around long enough to know, but I'm sure it has been a very long time since we've seen something as ridiculous as that. That's how rushed this has been. It's disorganised. It's haphazard. 'Anything to avoid scrutiny' sums up the process we've seen with this bill. During the first couple of EEC public hearings it quickly became apparent that, since the introduction of enterprise bargaining 30 years ago, we've seen fewer and fewer strikes. This is a good thing. It's good for productivity. However, I'm not convinced that those on the other side or those within the union movement think there have been enough strikes in at that time, and that's the core of what this bill aims to do. It's re-energising the strike capability of unions. It has been interesting to read some of the recent comments of Paul Keating and Bill Kelty, two of the architects of enterprise bargaining in the late 1990s, on why the framework they devised has been failing to increase productivity and overall wages growth. They lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Gillard government. In fact they believe it was that government which made enterprise bargaining much harder. Even more fascinating is that, because of the freefall in union membership over the past three decades—which is currently around 14 per cent, according to the ABS—Mr Kelty thinks we may see an uplift in union militancy if there are not enough ordinary workers to counterbalance militant leadership, and I quote Mr Kelty right now: I would be seen as some right-wing crank in some of these unions because the Trots run them. This brings me to my second point on what the bill is actually about. This is about growing union membership by stealth. Unsurprisingly this has set off alarm bells in many sectors of the community, because they do not want to see a repeat of the 1970s, when unions were out of control and ran rampant through Australian workplaces. Protected strike action was a strong theme of the 1970s, reaching a peak in 1974 during the incompetent Whitlam government. Without doubt one of the sectors that will be worse off under the bill is the very and all important small business sector. According to the Small Business Development Corporation, from my home state of Western Australia, 97 per cent of businesses are classified as small. So how will this bill be good for small business—or, more to the point, is it about giving unions a foothold in a sector they've never had access to before? During the second hearing I asked one stakeholder, the Franchise Council of Australia—mostly small businesses in that sector—whether this bill will lead to an increase in wages for employees or an increase in union involvement in small business. Ms Aldred said: We would suggest that union involvement in small businesses may ultimately undermine the sustainability and viability of many small businesses, which undermines the viability of jobs, so we have grave concerns on that basis. Small businesses don't have HR departments and legal departments to shield them from union meddling and fend away applications being filed against them by organisations who do not respect the law and have in fact stated they believe it's okay to break the law. Small business operators and mums and dads who work long hours and often seven days a week just want to get on with running their business, not examining the reams of complex legislation and keeping unions at bay. I'm very concerned that small businesses could be compelled into bargaining processes involuntarily and that they could be swamped by larger employers in the same sector under the majority vote support proposition. We could have a crazy situation in a shopping centre where Coles and Woolworths are dragged to bargain together. These guys are competitors. We know that. They'll be dragged in with smaller businesses who don't have the same scale or ability to deal with it. There are serious impacts on small businesses through this bill. On the point of serious impact, this bill abolishes the ABCC and the ROC. The Albanese government's animosity towards this important regulator is well known; we hear it a lot. As recently as 27 July 2022, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said of the ABCC: This has not been a good regulator. This is a regulator that has simply increased conflict and that has got in the way where agreements exist and where agreements are possible. The reasons for their dislike are hardly surprising. The ABCC was actually very good at its job. Time and again the ABCC prosecuted terrible recidivist behaviour of the Labor Party's union allies, which included verbal abuse and threats against inspectors and outright breaking of the law. Its success rate was commendably high. The union transgressions are too many to name here. We know what the minister thinks of the ABCC, but this is what the Master Builders said of the same regulator that the Minister has labelled as simply increasing conflict: The ABCC has made a significant difference in ensuring building industry participants comply with the rule of law and it has driven much needed positive industry cultural change … The work of the ABCC is not yet done and its removal will undo the significant improvements it has delivered for our building and construction industry. Tasking the Fair Work Ombudsman is not a like-for-like comparison. This bill removes the Building Code. The ombudsman does not have the same powers that the ABCC has. The government will say this bill doesn't apply to the CFMMEU because the bill provisions exclude general building and construction work. Thankfully, it will now include civil as well as commercial construction, but the bill does include some contractors, such as electricians, plumbers and metalworkers in multi-employer bargaining. We sure know the CFMMEU is going to find a way around any exclusions. Why would they do that? Because they're very well versed in breaking the law. Is it any wonder the CFMMEU thinks Christmas has come early—even before December. Never mind the inflation crisis that's unfolding under the watch of this government. This is the priority of this government: bringing on this bill. The RBA forecasts that we're going to see inflation hit eight per cent by Christmas. There's no talk of tackling this crisis that we've got right now. Instead, they're introducing bills like this. At the request of Senator Cash, I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be withdrawn and the Senate calls on the Albanese Government to: (a) give the Australian Parliament three months to review these significant changes rather than trying to force through the legislation this year; (b) amend the legislation to exclude changes to multi-employer bargaining which will lead to more strikes and fewer jobs without increasing productivity or wages; (c) admit to the Australian people that these extreme industrial relations changes will result in significant red tape and higher costs for small, family and medium businesses; (d) work with the Opposition, crossbench and other stakeholders to make improvements to the better off overall test and changes to enterprise bargaining as outlined in the former Coalition Government's legislation, introduced in 2020; (e) abandon the move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission; (f) redraft this legislation to ensure matters are dealt with separately rather than as an 'all or nothing' approach; and (g) in the event the Bill is passed, cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by the Act as soon as practical 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament". I seek leave to table additional comments. Leave granted. 20:24 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania So far, what we've heard from the coalition is the same old, tired contributions they do in debates around industrial relations time in, time out, year after year. Always, it's the hatred of organised labour. They can't stand it. They can't stand workers getting an even go at negotiation. They can't stand workers organising for themselves. That has been at the heart of the contributions that we've heard thus far. What they keep talking about and what they refuse to accept is the fact that we've just had nine years of a government that deliberately kept wages low. Now, I didn't bell the cat on that; former senator Cormann did. He belled the cat on that. This is a piece of legislation that is all about secure jobs and better pay. What Australian workers were left with after nearly 10 years of the coalition government was a bitter cocktail. What they were left with was a cocktail of an environment of insecure work, policies that were deliberately designed to keep wages low and a massive trillion-dollar debt. Each of those—count them off: one, two, three—can't be denied by those opposite. They cannot be denied; they are facts. The bill I rise to speak on today will enable workers to bargain across enterprises and will clamp down on the scourge of insecure work across our country, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. The secure jobs, better pay bill implements our election commitment and delivers on some of the immediate outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit in September. This bill is the first tranche of the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms, which are designed to modernise Australia's workplace relations systems and finally, after nine years of coalition government, get wages moving. This bill will bring Australian industrial relations up to speed with many countries around the world. Through industrywide bargaining, it will allow workers doing the same job to be paid the same wage. Industrywide bargaining will finally stop the practice of large corporations paying employees less than others in the same job and in the same uniform. Tasmanians have received the short straw when it comes to wages and conditions, something which has not been helped by consecutive federal and state Liberal governments. Tasmanian workers earn on average $200 a week less than their mainland counterparts, equating to about $10,000 a year. On top of this, if you're a woman in Tasmania, you can further expect to take home $163 less than a male doing the same job. So, as well as battling insecure work and the lowest wages in the country, Tasmanians are also experiencing the highest rate of inflation of all jurisdictions. Despite wages currently growing at a slightly higher rate in Tasmania compared to the rest of the country, the difference is so small that Tasmanian workers won't actually catch up until the next century. Finally Tasmanians can take a breath and know that this government, the Albanese Labor government, will spend their time fighting for them. We're not wasting any time; we're making improvements to the workplace relations system so it can work better for everyone. This bill will ban paid secrecy clauses in enterprise agreements, so workers can freely speak about their pay and conditions to their co-workers. Pay secrecy clauses are typically used to stop co-workers comparing their salaries and collectively pushing for pay rises, something those on the other side have, of course, spent a decade trying to stop. We know that pay secrecy clauses are rife in the banking sector, and I want to congratulate the Finance Sector Union for the long and relentless campaign to have the practice outlawed. Hundreds of thousands of workers will be better off for this work. From the work of the Unions Tasmania secretary, Jess Munday, the secure jobs, better pay bill will deliver meaningful change to our industrial relations system, a system that has been failing Tasmanian workers for close to a decade. I commend to the Senate the secure jobs, better pay bill and I urge senators to support the bill. 20:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Before I begin my contribution, I will just foreshadow that at the end of the second reading debate I will be moving the amendment on sheet 1772. It will come as no surprise to those in the chamber and those listening that I do not support this bill. This bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, simply put, is a union business model. That is what it is all about. Before the election, what did the government say? Before the election, what was the current government's policy in this area? I'm sure Senator Scarr knows. They said that this sort of multi-business bargaining is 'not part of our policy'—not part of our policy. Then, gosh, at the Jobs and Skills Summit—most know it as the union summit, the union stitch-up—suddenly it appears, and suddenly the industrial relations policy of the seventies and eighties is back in the frame for our nation. Back to the future it is indeed, because what this government is delivering is not an update to our industrial relations systems. It's in fact not a way of delivering secure jobs and better pay. It's a way of delivering a union business model. Now, Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, has argued that the bill will get wages moving. Well, wage growth has actually already commenced, on the back of a very high inflation number. Does the government actually support that? I don't think the government does, because the finance minister said in this place a few days ago: … no-one is pretending that wages should be growing at the pace of inflation. Listen to that. Think about it for a moment: 'No-one is pretending that wages should be growing at the pace of inflation.' Therefore, the finance minister was saying that wages shouldn't be growing at the pace of inflation. A decline in real wages is what this government is overseeing. I just want to dispel one myth, because we've heard this from the other side quite a lot—that real wages didn't grow under the coalition government. In fact, real wages grew in 2013, in 2015, in 2016, in 2018 and in 2019. And guess what? They did go backwards in 2020 and 2021, and I think there may have been a reason that real wages went backwards in those years. Something happened in those years, Senator Scarr. What was it that happened in those years? Oh, that's right. There was a global pandemic that shut down the economy for a year and a half and, gosh, it had an impact on wages! Surprise, surprise. Does anybody find that even remotely surprising or something that should be driving a modern economy's wages policy today? This is a ludicrous proposition. There was no mandate for the changes contained in this bill. Senator Ayres described this as a 'simple' bill: 250 pages, a simple bill! We had a rushed inquiry, where business organisations—certainly small- and medium-sized businesses—had absolutely no chance of understanding the content of the legislation, let alone its impact on their businesses. I did manage to sit in on the last day of the hearings into this bill. As I said, it was an extraordinarily rushed process. Senator O'Sullivan did an outstanding job on that inquiry and in the dissenting report by coalition members. But I managed to sit in on the last few hours of the hearing. It was very clear from the interrogation of the Fair Work Commission and the department that even if businesses had had the time to read this, and even if businesses had had the time to digest the 250 pages of legislation, plus the hundreds of pages of explanatory memorandum—even if they had had the time to work through all that—they still wouldn't know the answer to some really basic questions, such as, 'When are we going to be dragged into one of these multi-employer bargaining sessions that are the centrepiece of this bill?' This is how the government is promising they're going to get wages moving, by dragging businesses into these multi-employer arrangements. But the department couldn't answer when businesses would be considered to be in the same sector, when they would be joined together to be part of these bargaining arrangements. The Fair Work Commission couldn't answer these questions either. Senator Scarr 282997 It's called an explanatory memorandum, but it doesn't explain! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 There's no explanation in the explanatory memorandum, so it would have been a waste of time, Senator Scarr, for businesses to actually read the explanatory memorandum. That's because the department and the Fair Work Commission couldn't explain it and, presumably, they're the ones who the government, at least partially, consulted on this bill—if they weren't just talking to the unions, which is entirely possible. My good friend Ms Marino, the member for Forrest, asked a pretty simple question in the House about something that occurs in quite a few places in her electorate. You might have a beautiful, lovely rural block with a little brew house on it. You might serve a bit of food and it's a lovely place to go. I've been to one or two of them myself! Then right next door to it is a winery which sells a little bit of wine and a little bit of food; it's got a restaurant attached. They look pretty similar. But when Nola Marino, the member for Forrest, asked about this the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business, Ms Collins, said: 'Seriously, we keep getting all sorts of analogies from those opposite. We've said that they need to be comparable. They clearly are not.' Well, wait a sec, they're not comparable? Senator Scarr 282997 It's the geographical location! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 They're right next door to each other, selling food and selling alcohol—it's tourism and hospitality—and they're not? If simple questions can't get an answer out of the department, can't get an answer out of the Fair Work Commission and can't get an answer out of the minister then how are businesses supposed to go through these 250 pages of legislation and the hundreds of pages in the explanatory memorandum to understand it? The answer is, obviously, that they can't, so they probably need a little bit of help with this new industrial relations regime. They will probably need to get some IR consultants in and, of course, Senator Cash has prosecuted the case on the extraordinary failure of due diligence by this government on their own regulatory impact statement—a regulatory impact statement that allocates $175 as an approximate cost per hour of bargaining. I was sitting in the inquiry, as I said, when Senator Cash was asking these questions. I thought, quickly, 'How can I find out what the real cost of some advice of this sort would be?' and, as many of us do, I've got a mate who is a lawyer in the industrial relations area. So I sent him a quick text message and said, 'What's it cost to get a non-legal IR representative to give you some advice in this space?' Senator Scarr 282997 You ask someone who does it. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 You ask someone who does it. I asked a lawyer in the IR space what a non-lawyer would cost, and he said, 'Around $450 an hour.' What did the government allocate, in their regulatory impact statement, to the cost of this kind of advice? Senator Scarr 282997 A hundred and seventy-five dollars. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 That's right, Senator Scarr: $175. I'm not going to go through again where that $175 came from. Senator Cash has embarrassed the government enough. The fact that they referenced a spiritual healer for the cost imposed on small business should be a deep shame—a deep shame to the minister and a deep shame to every member of the government. Then what did they do? They had the department come out and issue a statement saying, 'Oh, no, it's just the reference that was wrong,' even though it said $175 in the regulatory impact statement and $175 on the website of the spiritual healer—exactly the same number. They said, 'Oh, no, actually it was just a bad reference; we looked at the AFR as well.' Well, I'd like the government to show me where exactly in the AFR it says that the cost of IR advice for small business is 175 bucks an hour, because I don't reckon they'd be able to find it. I don't think they'd be able to point to it. I don't think any of those other 'sources' they cited would have $175, because it's a non-credible number. But did the government own the mistake? Did they just say, 'Yes, okay, sorry; that was a silly number and we shouldn't have used it, and the cost is way higher for small business'? No, they didn't. Instead, they got the department to try to justify that number by saying it came from a whole lot of different sources all over the place, when in actual fact they know it came from a spiritual healer. That should be a deep embarrassment to the government, because it shows the absolute contempt in which the government holds small and medium-sized business. In the few minutes remaining to me, I just want to address a couple of the changes that have been made to the bill in the deal with Senator Pocock. In particular, I wish to talk about the change from 15 to 20 employees being the threshold for a small business. It sounds like a good change on the surface, until you delve into the numbers a little bit more deeply. When you delve into the breakdown of small business in Australia, you'll realise that the vast majority of businesses classified as small businesses have no employees. They're effectively sole traders with no full-time or part-time employees that would meet the standards of being considered to be an employment size of one to four. Some 59 per cent are non-employing business. Some 30 per cent have one to four employees. Some nine per cent have five to 19 employees. I can't find the exact breakdown for that 15-to-20 category, but the best guess you could make from those sorts of numbers is that it increased the percentage of small business protected under the legislation by about four or five per cent. Only four or five per cent more businesses will be protected by moving that threshold from 15 to 20 people. So, unfortunately, it just doesn't provide the protection that small business particularly deserves. I hate to admit my age, but I can remember the 1970s and early 1980s and the industrial disputation in Western Australia. Senat 207825 No! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but I can. I can remember the impact it had on small businesses, particularly in rural and regional Australia. I can remember the impact of the industrial disputation on the ports of Western Australia and particularly on the farming industry, including on our family farm. This was a time when industrial disputation saw businesses driven out of business. It saw rates of unemployment that we never want to see in this country again. I'll remind everybody that this government inherited from the coalition an extraordinarily low unemployment rate and a growing economy, and every job that is lost under your watch will be a badge of shame. That, in the end, is what this legislation will do. It will drive up unemployment. It will make businesses uncertain about hiring new people. It will worsen the state of the economy. And you know that you aren't going to be delivering any real wage rises, because you haven't got inflation under control. 20:45 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory During the election campaign, I told Canberrans that should I become a senator I would sit in this place and look at each piece of legislation on its merits—look at it and say: 'How will this affect the people of the ACT? How does this square with the kind of future that we want to create in Australia?' My commitment was that on the big pieces of legislation that were contentious I would consult as widely and as thoroughly as I could. This is what I've tried to do over the last month. I've listened, I've consulted and I've negotiated honestly to get the best outcome for the people I've been sent here to represent. I was watching the Senate earlier, and it really highlighted that there are some politicians in this place who can stretch the truth at times. I would like to point out that in the meeting that Senator Hanson referred to, she was not present. I've been very upfront with concerns about how rushed this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, has been. This is a big IR omnibus bill. Indeed, standing here, I moved a motion to push the reporting date out so that the Senate had more time to consider this bill. In that vote, where the motion was narrowly defeated, may I point out that a credible source informs me that Senator Hanson was in the Virgin lounge on her way home. So I take on board her comments, but, as far as engaging with this bill, she is a long way off the mark. After that vote went down and it became clear that this was going to come on for a vote in the last week, I knuckled down and got to work and tried to get across this issue as best I could to be able to make a decision and vote on behalf of the people of the ACT, something that I take very seriously. I have consulted, I've held a round table with business, I've had a town hall attended by 200 people and I've also met with workers, business owners big and small, unions and employer representatives. I've tried to do the best I could with the time available to me, and I am now happy with where we have landed. I understand that with most of these debates around contentious issues we hear extreme sides of the argument, and my sense is that we should probably be heading somewhere in the middle, looking for that middle ground. It's absolutely correct that workers have waited too long for a pay rise. There are so many Australians doing it tough. Their wages have not kept pace with inflation and have not kept pace with the cost of living. Many of these workers are the same heroes in our community who have put their time and their lives on the line to get us through COVID. Those people deserve a pay rise. I appreciate, too, the anxieties of business, especially small business. My parents were small-business owners. I've seen their efforts at times not resulting in much reward and just how hard they have worked to keep that business going. Many of the things that happen are outside of small-business owners' control. At times there is a huge burden in terms of administration and red tape, and we all need to appreciate the huge contribution they make to our nation. The long list of amendments that have been negotiated with the government addressed most of these anxieties, certainly the most pressing. For 97.5 per cent of businesses in Australia, they will be excluded from the changes in this IR bill. For those that are excluded I've secured a commitment from the minister to review modern awards. Sitting on the committee, I saw that this was something that kept coming up: people wanting a review of the modern award—a whole range of views, from some people wanting them simplified and others wanting more awards. For those with a more-niche business, rather than having a 150-page award they can have something that applies just to their line of work. For the 2.5 per cent of businesses who will be affected by this bill, there are a range of new safeguards that the government will have to put in place. There will be a longer grace period so that businesses have more time to negotiate a single-enterprise agreement. As pointed out earlier, there's a total carve-out of civil construction alongside residential and commercial—a new reasonable comparability threshold in the common-interest test to provide more clarity and to deal with one of the issues that kept getting raised, which is the need to ensure that, for example, the big supermarket chains are not able to drag your IGAs and independent grocers into a bargain. As pointed out, too, by many, there's a higher threshold for small business—a 20 headcount, and that doesn't include seasonal workers or irregular casuals. There's also a new safeguard for medium-size businesses of 50 people or fewer that makes it harder to get in and easier to get out of multi-enterprise bargaining. In this there's a recognition that if you have a business with under 50 employees it's unlikely that you have a dedicated HR person or department and that you have less resources. The onus is now on the applicant, which in most cases will be a union, to provide a case as to why it is in the common interest for a smaller employer to bargain in a multi-enterprise stream, taking some of the onus off businesses with under 50 employees. There's the requirement for conciliation to take place before arbitration when you're dealing with working arrangements, unless there are exceptional circumstances—another clause that's had some work today. There's also removal of the absolute right that unions have to veto an agreement. This was another concern raised through the committee process and has been raised with me personally. Where there are two or more unions involved and they withhold their vote, the commission can now determine whether they are unreasonably withholding agreement and it can be put to a vote. There's also a statutory review no later than two years after the passage of this bill so that we can see what's working and what isn't. That will be ahead of the next election. The Australian people will be able to decide what they think of this based on that review and what people are seeing. I would really like to see a lot more reviewing and adapting legislation as we go. I don't think the approach of setting and forgetting things is appropriate, given how big many of the decisions in this place are. Then there are other parts of the agreement I'd like to speak to. Senator Cash rightly pointed out that it was struck late at night. I was here for the College of Nursing ball, and we'd been negotiating for a couple of days and finally landed in a spot where I can now hand on heart vote for this bill and believe I'm voting on behalf of the ACT people in good faith. One of the things I would like to address is that there was no secret deal. I've been very upfront about the terms, how it was agreed and whom it was agreed with. This morning I met with local ACT firefighters, who will now find it much easier to access workers compensation benefits for eight additional cancers, including women's reproductive cancers. This is included in this bill and is incredibly important for people who put their lives on the line not only through bushfire season but every day in towns and cities across the country. We go from having decent coverage for firies to now having world-leading coverage when it comes to firefighters and presumptive legislation to do with cancers. The week after next I'm meeting with subcontractors, who will be better protected and who will stand a better chance of being paid on time every time, following a commitment from the PM to respond to the recommendations of the Murray review. This is something unions and businesses across the sector want dealt with. The review has been languishing on a desk somewhere since 2017 and hasn't been responded to. Then there's the commitment to a new legislated expert committee that will finally give the more than three million people living in poverty a shot at getting out of it. I understand there are a range of views in this place saying that the last thing we need is a committee. For me this is about transparency and being able to see not only expert advice but advice that is produced by a committee that includes experts, people with lived experience, someone from the unions and someone from business to look at social security payments and provide advice to government, and then we'll be able to see what is being done with that advice by this government and by future governments. Clearly it's a great thing to get wages moving. We have to remember the people who aren't in the job market, who are currently unemployed for whatever reason. Despite the rhetoric that you'll hear from various people in this place, during COVID when the former government lifted the rate of JobSeeker, we saw people coming off JobSeeker. All of a sudden people had more time and they had more money to think about getting into work. They weren't constantly scrambling just to put food on the table. They weren't under chronic stress. This is really about the kind of future that we want to create together. I'm really pleased and proud to have put this into this agreement, and it will be acted on. I'd really like to address again just how important it is that we get wages moving for people in our communities who clearly need it—the highly feminised industries; the people who are educating future generations, are looking after the generations that are at the end of their life and are cleaning our offices here in Parliament House and the Senate floor. I understand that there is criticism from the big business lobbies. I'm not here to represent big business; I'm very open about that. I'm happy to cop the criticism. I've engaged with them, I've been upfront with them and I believe that this is the right decision on this bill. I want to thank fellow senators on all sides of politics for their engagement in the committee process. I really do find it such a valuable process. It is a real privilege to be able to interrogate and ask questions of experts and people with lived experience. It really has been fundamental to being able to ask better questions, to have questions answered and then to form a position on this bill. I would urge and ask the government in future to allow more discussion and scrutiny on big pieces of legislation. This has been rushed. Big changes do warrant more scrutiny. I've made that clear throughout. As I said, I moved a motion to push the reporting date back. That was unsuccessful. So I've made do with the time allocated, and I will be supporting this bill. 21:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This bill is about secure jobs and better wages. It's a bill to reform Australia's workplace relations framework in relation to gender equality, to gender equity, to workplace health and safety, to jobs and wages, to security for those jobs and those wages, to bargaining and to industrial action. This bill is about the future of jobs in Australia, the future of fair pay and conditions for Australian workers and the future of take-home pay in every household across the nation. In my home state of Tasmania people are doing it tough right now. Wages are historically low in Tasmania, compared to the mainland. The costs of living continues to place great pressure on family budgets. House prices remain high, and mortgage repayments and rents are increasing. We have two options for how we deal with this situation. We can sit on our hands and make no changes—those opposite would have us go down that path—or we can act decisively to bring greater fairness to workplaces and people's livelihoods across the country. The Labor movement has always fought for better pay and conditions for the Australian people, and that is what this bill entails. I thank unions in my home state of Tasmania—the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the Australian Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union and Unions Tasmania—who visited me in my office last week. They care about their fellow Tasmanians. They fight every day for better pay and conditions for Tasmanian workers. Just as it is in my DNA to fight for better wages and conditions and equality and equity for Tasmanian workers, it is in the DNA of those opposite to keep wages low. That was their government's policy over the last 10 years. That's what they said. They said it and they acted upon it. That's why, after 10 very long years, they allowed the economic drift, and they kept wages low by design. The Albanese Labor government is taking significant action with this bill, which will improve the lives of working Australians. The Albanese government is putting jobs and skills at the top of the government's agenda, which is what we promised during the election campaign and is what we are going to deliver, because we know the importance of a job to an individual's life. A secure, well-paid job not only provides Australians with dignity and purpose but serves our community and our economy. For too long workers have had to deal with a situation where their wages had stagnated. It is a too-common situation where a business can employ a fellow Australian as a permanent casual for more than 14 years, when the employee actually want more hours or a part-time contract, but the business is unwilling to make them permanent and give them job security. How can it be that someone can work for the one company for 14 years as a casual, working every single weekend, without ever being offered a permanent job? These practices are shameful and they must stop. Australians are crying out for leadership on wages in this country, and therefore the Albanese government does not want to waste any time before making improvements to the workplace relations system so that it can work better for everyone. Ten years passed under the former Liberal government, and it was their deliberate intention, as I said, to keep wages low. They have admitted that that was a feature of their industrial relations architecture: to keep wages low in Australia, to keep the take-home pay of Australians to a minimum. But now they dare to debate this bill in here and will, ultimately, vote against this legislation. That is in direct contrast to what the Albanese government wants to do. It is in deliberate contrast to what the Australian people voted for. They voted for a new government and voted for change. We want to get wages moving and, within days of being elected, the Prime Minister wrote to the Fair Work Commission, urging a pay increase for those on the minimum wage. And it was granted. There can be no fair criticism that there has not been consultation on this bill. The government was consulting before the election and during the election; consultation on this bill has been extensive and underway since then. As a result of that ongoing consultation, further government amendments have been made to this bill. These amendments will support the government's objectives. This bill will be good for individuals, good for the community, good for the economy and good for national productivity. There has been much debate and commentary about this bill in the media, but if anyone wants to see the stark difference between the two major parties in Australia right now then this is the bill which demonstrates that clearly. We are a government that is fighting for the rights of working Australians; a government that is unbridled in its passion and perseverance to bring down the cost of living and to get wages moving. However, those opposite want to leave this bill until next year. In fact, they would rather that we not debate it at all. They want to go away from this place and come back after Christmas while wages remain stagnant and the economy continues to place greater pressure on Australians who are struggling with the cost of living. While those opposite are sitting back at Christmas barbecues, drinking their Penfolds out of their crystal, Australians will still be seeking a pay rise. I note that Senator Lambie pretends she is standing up for working people but is not supporting this bill. It isn't a secret anymore, Senator Lambie and the Jacqui Lambie Network: you are not standing up for wage increases for Australian workers and you're not supporting Tasmanian workers. The coalition of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network wants to allow wages and take-home pay to be cut. That's what they stand for, there are no ifs or buts about this. They have put this sentiment in writing. The Australian people have been waiting now for too long for a government to stand up for their interests—to stand up for better pay and conditions, to stand up and say that wages are too low in this country. Our wages are not in line with the rising grocery and fuel prices, or increasing rents, mortgages and inflation. We, on this side of the chamber, have waited 10 long years for this bill to reach this place. Now is the time to pass it and to vote it into law. This bill will make the pay equity and job security objectives so that our system works. It's a bill that will allow a pathway for enterprise agreements and for multi-employer agreements in order to get wages moving. I'd like to place on the record my thanks to Senator David Pocock for his contribution in negotiating and in finally coming to support this bill. As he said, so many of the frontline workers that we relied upon during the COVID pandemic are the people who will benefit most from this legislation. As I said, people have been waiting for far too long for this pay rise. They should not have to wait a day longer, and I urge those people in this place who are on the opposite side and on the crossbenches to actually support this bill, because it is in the interests of all Australians and particularly of working Australians. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, who will deliver this for Australian workers. 21:09 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Clear! Let's be clear: this Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is an election promise. It's a secret promise; it's a secret deal with the union movement and a secret deal that Australians didn't know about. Australian employers didn't know about it and this is the greatest breach of trust and faith that could have been delivered to the Australian workforce. Before the election the Treasurer said that multi-employer bargaining was not a part of their agenda—another Labor lie. This is only about delivering for union membership. Union movement membership is down to 14 per cent, because Australian workers say, 'I am not spending my hard-earned dollars on this lack of representation where my money is hived off for donations, for big fat salaries, for union reps'—who end up here. The union reps end up here. I would love to know how many of those sitting on the other side have not been on a salary paid for either by workers, hard-working Australians, or by some other union deal. Show your hands. How many years since you've sweated over a mortgage and paying people yourself? That's what I'd like to ask those on the other side. This is a pay-off for donations from the unions. Unions do not create jobs. Government doesn't create jobs—except with taxes. Businesses and employers do create jobs. Unions reckon this is about feminized workforces—to get wages moving. If they were serious about this, this would not be the way they'd go. Multi-employer bargaining is about paying off highly litigious lawfare driven unions, like the mining unions, like the construction unions. This is not about women who are working in retirement homes and cleaning jobs. This is about making big unions fatter. It reflects how out of touch this government is. The talking points are all they know. If you listen to everyone on the other side you'll get rolled out about getting wages moving, about the lack of action. Do they ever talk about how tough it is to take out a mortgage; to sweat over how you're going to take income from people you are earning your income from to pay your workers to secure their future, to secure your customers future, to pay your suppliers? They said nothing about growing jobs and securing the very people who provide jobs. Medium-sized businesses—not big businesses—are captured by this extreme legislation. What about businesses doing it tough? What about those people? There is no reflection at all for businesses who have been shut down over the last two years; businesses who are stressed to the extreme, who can't find workers, who are working seven days a week, who cry to me when I speak to them about another public holiday being given by the Labor government, who cry to me about how are they going to do the work for their customers who are coming in who they feel so passionately about? How are they going to provide enough work and enough income with their limited workforce to pay the bills, to pay the wages and still be treated like the big end of town? Who's thinking about them? It's not this Albanese government. It is not them. It is tough. They are low margins. There are higher electricity costs. There are higher fuel costs. Transport costs are crippling businesses. There are higher costs of food. The uncertainty of this legislation will be the last nail in the coffin of so many of those businesses. I've got letters from small businesses and medium-size businesses across Queensland. Sally says she will have to review staffing to stay below the 20 employee threshold or sell the business. She already pays staff above the award wage. She is heartbroken. After dealing with COVID disruptions, over-regulation and taxation she does not need this as well. She actually names Senator Pocock as the 'Judas of small business'. Leslie, another small business owner, says, 'Restaurants, cafes and catering businesses were some of the hardest hit venues during the COVID pandemic and now face crippling staff shortages. With the rise in costs and supply chain disruptions now is not the time to punish business owners. Multi-employer bargaining is impractical and alarming. It would introduce uniformity in an industry that is, by its nature, diverse, creative, innovative and constantly changing.' Leslie finishes with, 'Please save the 58,000 restaurants, cafes and catering businesses and their 357,000 employees across Australia.' I don't hear the unions talking about those business owners. Senator McKenzie 207825 Those women. Senator McDONALD 123072 Those women, yes. Another small business owner: 'The rush of this bill is extremely concerning. At present, every business is short staffed and facing difficult circumstances. We're all trying to find our feet after COVID, and to rush through a bill without adequate understanding from the business community is unreasonable. This is another issue where employers will be forced to enter into a new agreement within 12 months, creating disharmony, hardship, costs and upheaval at a time when that is the last thing that is needed.' These proposed workplace changes represent the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades. Labor has made it clear they want to hand over workplaces to the unions. This is a breach of faith with the Australian voter and Australian businesses large and small who took the Treasurer at his word when he said last year that industrywide bargaining was not part of Labor's policy—and at a time when businesses are doing it tough. They're struggling. They're struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs, and union masters will not make it better. I know that in Townsville alone the number of small businesses that are closing or are up for sale is increasing every month. I had my hair cut the other day, and the hairdresser said she no longer employs anybody. She doesn't even have an apprentice. After the last dispute she had with an employee, it cost her $50,000 in legal fees for it to be thrown out of the court. This small-business owner has all of her savings gone because we are not a country that values employers anymore. We don't value the people who take out the mortgage and stress over how they're going to make ends meet, because we've got those on the other side calling late payment of superannuation 'wages theft'. What would they know about struggling to make cashflow stretch? Unfortunately, the minor amendments between Senator Pocock and Labor do nothing to allay the concerns of small and family businesses across Australia. These businesses will still be forced to bargain against their will as part of the supported bargaining stream. Businesses with more than 20 staff will still be able to be dragged into multi-employer agreements with their much larger competitors. We've seen the modelling: the regulatory impact statement reveals how much that bargaining costs will impose on small and medium and large businesses. This bill will lead to more strikes, more job losses and more uncertainty. This is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. This is nothing about productivity. This legislation does not mention productivity. All it mentions is wages growth, without an understanding that somebody has to pay the bill. And I don't see anybody on the other side with any understanding of the stress of paying the bill. How much fairness is there in it for the people who take the risks, who mortgage their homes, who employ people and create these jobs? How much fairness is in it for them—for people who rely on the structure of awards, who rely on the structure of predictability? Because you're right: there's not an HR department for a business of 20 people. There's probably not an HR department for a business of 100 people with a three per cent margin that is struggling every week to pay the ever-increasing bills. Not only is this attacking medium business and small business; guess what? We're going to take on the very businesses that pay the royalties and taxes and the incredibly highly paid wages in mining. It is mining who is going to have to pick up the pieces. It is always mining that Labor turns to for more taxes, risking up to 33,000 jobs. Remember, mining jobs are, on average, double the average Australian salary. The average Australian salary is $90,000, and for mining jobs it is double that. The administration clerks in mining companies are on double that. Truck drivers are on double that. Yet they're the jobs that this is going to risk—140 projects worth $77 billion at risk. Of these projects, 46 are critical minerals. Apparently we need critical minerals. But not under this government, because they say one thing to industry and another thing to suit the unions. This will cost not just the business owner; this will cost the taxpayer, because for every week of strikes and lockdowns it is hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties, in company taxes, in PAYG salaries for these workers. In the last 20 years employment in mining has tripled. Wages have doubled, benefitting hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially in regional areas. Mining companies themselves are saying that these changes will slow down Australia's energy transformation and that while we need more lithium for batteries, more copper for solar panels and more cobalt for electric vehicles we do not need more uncertainty and risk that will chase away investment. Simon Trott of Rio Tinto said: I do have concerns, serious concerns about the legislation as it's currently drafted. It will be a handbrake on economic growth. It'll be a handbrake on productivity and ultimately a handbrake on wages in the rest of the economy. Hancock Prospecting Chief Executive Garry Korte said a six-week period of strike action at Port Hedland would cost $9 billion in lost iron ore export revenue and an estimated $551 million in lost mining royalties to the Western Australian government. That is a six-week strike period. He said: If the Bill were to pass in its current form it would open the door to a confrontational industrial relations system that could cripple our industry and result in poorer wage outcomes for our workers. Finally, from BHP—and I know those on the other side don't like hearing from these big employers, who employ thousands of Australians and pay them more than double the average wage, who pay the royalties and the company taxes that allow us to have roads and schools and hospitals, but I'm still going to quote them—Mike Henry says: There simply is no case for multi-employer bargaining in the mining industry. This is an industry where the current approach has been working well, wages have been on the move. He went on to say: We are a business that competes globally. It's just so essential that Australia remain competitive and any aspects of the legislation that run the risk of reducing flexibility, giving rise to increased industrial action and so on, that's all going to harm Australian competitiveness in our sector. If this was truly, as Labor likes to say, about the feminised workforce, if this was truly about low-paid workers in our society, if this was truly about allowing more people more flexibility to get their kids to school and care for people, this would not be the way they'd go about it. This is the way that you will threaten the jobs of thousands of Australians as small business owners shut their doors, saying: 'Enough. We cannot keep paying for the social demands of this Labor government. We cannot keep paying for the union demands, the union payoffs of this Labor government.' As Senator Brockman said, every job that is lost, every small or medium business that closes its door, every mining company that doesn't reinvest in this country and goes offshore, and every electricity transmission project that does not proceed because of this legislation, along with the millions and billions of royalties that are lost because of this legislation, is on this government's head. 21:24 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, which the Greens are pleased to support with the changes secured through our negotiations with the government. Industrial relations in this country have been firmly stacked against workers for too long, so it's good to see some movement in the right direction to give workers more power to organise, particularly in lower-paid industries. Workers haven't seen a pay rise in real terms for a decade. People on low incomes are being forced to endure inflation on essential items and housing costs and are being hit hard by interest rate increases while corporate profits continue to skyrocket. We support industrial relations changes that shift the dial back toward power for working people. The Greens have worked hard to secure changes to the bill, and we're also pleased to see several longstanding Greens positions within the legislation. These include an enforceable right to a better work-life balance, banning of pay secrecy clauses and abolishing the ABCC. The government's original bill attempted to remove prospective workers from being considered under the better off overall test when agreements are approved, something we were concerned could have led to prospective workers being worse off. The Greens have ensured that the test will remain in the legislation, protecting workers' conditions. I am particularly pleased that hospitality workers and those in retail will be protected under the agreement that we secured on the better off overall test. We had real concerns that some workers could be sidelined from being covered by the test, and I'm very pleased to see these protections remain in place. For workers in feminised industries, especially early childhood educators and people in aged or disability care, a pay rise cannot come soon enough. Workers throughout Queensland and my home of Central Queensland deserve a pay rise. These care industries are the backbone of our society. In my view, the work they do is amongst the most important in our community. Respecting these industries is critical. Respect means a significant pay rise and better conditions. Critically, it also means the right to organise and bargain collectively. I'm also pleased to see the end of pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, which have also contributed to the persistence of the gender pay gap. I'll never forget how shocked I was when I discovered that a young male colleague in the law firm I was working for was being paid more than me, despite me acting as his mentor. I'm also proud to support a bill that secures the right to flexibility for workers with caring responsibilities. The work that my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock has done on the Work and Care Select Committee revealed the importance of an enforceable right to request unpaid parental leave and the right to request flexibility. That is now enshrined in the legislation. This is just the start of industrial relations reforms in this parliament. There's a lot more to do. We need to get sick leave for casuals, we need to move towards a four-day work week and we need to outlaw insecure work. That is now the next fight. 21:27 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, a bill that will deliver secure jobs and better pay for Australians, a bill that puts respect for women workers at the heart of our workplace laws, a bill that makes better wages a deliberate design feature of our government's agenda. This bill will modernise our bargaining system, opening up the process of making agreements and expanding access to multi-employer bargaining, making it easier for employers and employees to come to the table and end the race to the bottom on wages. It will help close the gender pay gap for millions of working women. It will create two new expert panels in the Fair Work Commission, one for pay equity and one for the care and community sector. It will make gender equity a central object of the Fair Work Act and open up bargaining to millions of low-paid women in sectors like aged care, early childhood and disability services through the supported bargaining stream. The bill also delivers so much more than this, because delivering secure jobs and better pay means delivering a better life for working Australians. A secure job means finally having the ability to plan your life, to apply for a loan or a lease, to choose to start a family, or just know that you'll be able to be with them for the holidays. Better pay means being able to make ends meet, to live without the constant stress and impossible choices of poverty wages and instead be able to afford the little luxuries which make life enjoyable and which we all deserve. It means a better life with choice, with dignity and with respect, and working Australians deserve a better life now. In 10 years of low wages as a deliberate design feature of the current opposition's economic policy, with growing gig work and casualisation, we've seen a race to the bottom on wages and conditions across some of our most essential sectors. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Thank you, Senator Walsh. There is tomorrow. The time for the debate has ended. ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Middle East 99 21:30 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Recently the US ordered an investigation into the death of one of its citizens, Shireen Abu Akleh, a veteran Al Jazeera journalist and one of the biggest names in Arab journalism. She was also a Palestinian. Shireen was wearing a vest emblazoned with the word 'Press' when she was shot in the head and killed. The Israeli military immediately blamed Palestinians for her death. However, when independent probes, including by the New York Times, found there were no Palestinians firing in the area, the military retracted that statement. Israel's own probe now admits that there is a high probability that an Israeli soldier fired the shot but that it was accidental, and there will be no criminal investigation. Just to be very clear, she was working as a journalist and clearly wearing a press jacket, and Israeli soldiers were the only ones firing. Israel have said that they will not cooperate with the US probe, even though they're supported by US$3.8 billion every year in military aid from the US. Shireen is one of 197 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces this year alone. This includes 43 children. Those killed in the last two months include a 15-year-old girl, Fulla Rasmi, who was shot while she was a passenger in a car driving slowly along Palestinian residential streets, and 12-year-old boy Mahmoud, who allegedly threw a few stones at a military jeep in his town—a town where, under the Oslo Accords, Israeli forces should not be. In response, soldiers shot him with live ammunition. Speaking about Israel's attacks on Gaza in May, the UN Secretary-General said: I am shocked by the number of children killed and maimed by Israeli forces during hostilities, in air strikes on densely populated areas and through the use of live ammunition during law enforcement operations, and by the persistent lack of accountability for these violations. An opinion poll conducted by YouGov earlier this year revealed a majority of Australians want an end to Israel's military occupation of Palestine and to the Egyptian and Israeli siege of Gaza. The opinion poll asked if Palestine should be given full recognition and if there should be support for the International Criminal Court investigation into war crimes in Palestine. I saw with my own eyes the impact of Israel's military occupation of Palestine. I watched children being tried in military courts. These did not meet any of the basic standards of a fair trial. This process, which ends with a 99 per cent conviction rate for Palestinians, can hardly be deemed just. I saw homes that had been demolished by Israeli forces. I saw families displaced by settlements and their farming lands being declared closed military zones. I stood beside the nine-metre-high concrete wall that Israel has built—twice as high and four times as long as the Berlin Wall—which rips apart Palestinian neighbourhoods and annexes Palestinian lands. Military occupations are inherently brutal, but they are never supposed to be permanent. Military occupations must be opposed, whether in Ukraine or in Palestine. A recent report by the UN commission of inquiry found that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under international law. I'd like to quote Commissioner Chris Sidoti, formerly of the Australian Human Rights Commission. He said: The actions of Israeli Governments reviewed in our report constitute an illegal occupation and annexation regime that must be addressed. The international system and individual States must act and uphold their obligations under international law. That must begin at this session of the General Assembly with a referral to the International Court of Justice. The Australian government is committed to an international rules based order which upholds the rights of all people wherever they may live. Today is the United Nations International Day of Solidarity with Palestinian People. This day exists to call on the international community not just to speak but to act. We must recognise the rights of Palestinians as equal to those of Israelis: to have self-determination, to have security and to live equally amongst the world's nations. We must also support Israeli accountability in international courts and ensure Israel's violations of international law are challenged. Western Australia: Labor Government 99 21:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia In March 2021, the WA Premier Mark McGowan and his Labor government were rewarded with a thumping majority, based largely on their perceived handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The line 'Mark McGowan kept me safe from COVID' rang out like political gold across Western Australia. While the McGowan government may have handled aspects of the pandemic well, it has also used it as a political shield to hide its incompetence elsewhere. More people deserve to know the truth about the underperformance of the McGowan Labor government. Public sector wage rises have been capped at $1,000 a year since 2017, supposedly so the government could undertake budget repair. Now, with a $6 billion surplus, it's not unreasonable that nurses and midwives, among others, are asking for their fair share. In recent days, we've seen images of nurses striking because of the McGowan government's bungled wage negotiations. How did Mark McGowan respond to 3,000 striking nurses? He arrogantly declared on Friday that their actions were 'totally and utterly outrageous'. Compare this to 2013, when the Barnett Liberal government listened to the concerns of nurses and signed an agreement to provide wage increases. At the time, Premier Barnett said: When you are faced, as a Premier, with clear professional advice that lives could be lost—and they probably would be—I think I had a responsibility to act on that. Those were the words of the former Liberal Premier Colin Barnett. Mark McGowan's responsibility is no less, but he has just failed it. It's the same story with ambulance ramping. Under McGowan and his now health minister, Amber-Jade Sanderson, ambulances in Western Australia have spent more than 54,000 hours ramped outside state hospitals this year, a dramatic increase from just 25,902 hours in 2021. Labor's response has been to blame St John Ambulance and the ambos in a pathetic refusal to accept accountability. It's no overstatement that the McGowan government has generated a health crisis—a health crisis that is of its own making. They have had more than 500 hospital code yellows this year alone. The worst impacted was Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, which went into code yellow 144 times in 2021-22—an average of once every 2½ days. The Australian Medical Association (WA) president, Mark Duncan-Smith, described code yellows as 'nearly unheard of' when he was a junior doctor. These incidents are a direct consequence of the McGowan Labor government running the medical system into the ground over the last five years due to blatantly underfunding health services. WA Labor hasn't fared any better when it comes to law and order. The state's crime severity score has risen in seven offence categories, including abduction, harassment, sexual offences and acts intended to cause injury. Premier McGowan has said: I take responsibility for these things, we are going to ensure we continue to roll-out additional police officers in the city and regional WA. So said the Labor Premier Mark McGowan. But this financial year 340 police officers left the WA police service, with 60 departing in June this year alone. Labor simply isn't working for WA. The Premier has also made a hash of WA's transition to renewables. Power outages have become a regular part of WA life. Energy minister Bill Johnston, or 'Blackout Bill', as he's known in Western Australia, is begging Western Australians via text not to use energy after a series of outages last summer. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Excuse me, Senator Smith. Senator Farrell, on a point of order. Senator Farrell I0N I know Minister Johnston. He's a very, very fine fellow— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Your point of order? Senator Farrell I0N I'd request that, in accordance with the traditions in this Senate, Senator Smith describe him by his correct title, which is Minister Johnston. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Farrell. Senator Smith, please refer to people by their correct titles. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I know Mr Bill Johnston very well as well, and I don't think he'll be too offended. It doesn't distract from the most important point, which is that the energy minister, Bill Johnston, is begging Western Australians via text message not to use energy after a series of outages last summer. The national electricity market regulator, AEMO— Senator Farrell I0N A point of order: I did request that, in accordance with the great—this bloke claims to be a traditionalist! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Direct your comments through the chair, please, Senator Farrell. Senator Farrell I0N Yes. In the traditions of this Senate, can he please describe the minister by his correct title, Minister Johnston. He should withdraw his claims about the minister and describe him by his correct title. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Thank you very much, Senator Farrell. I take it as a compliment to be regarded as a traditionalist in this Senate. What is the McGowan government's scorecard? Health? Fail. Law and order? Fail. Energy? Fail. Forestry? Fail. WA Labor isn't working for Western Australians. Middle East 101 21:41 Senator 250362 New South Wales FARUQI () (): Today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people. The year 2022 has been a year of tragedy after tragedy. Yet, day after day, the courageous Palestinian people resist occupation and oppression. On 15 April, Israeli forces stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem and injured more than 150 Palestinians, including children. This was an appalling attack and a flagrant violation of international conventions. On 11 May, veteran Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by Israeli forces while on assignment in the occupied West Bank. She was wearing a protective vest marked with 'press' in big bold letters and standing with other journalists when she was shot dead by an Israeli sniper. It was an assassination for which we have seen no justice, and she is the latest in a long line of journalists killed by the Israeli military. On 5 August, the Israeli regime began a three-day bombing assault in the Gaza Strip, which killed at least 49 Palestinians, including 17 children, and injured hundreds of others. On 18 August, seven Palestinian civil society and human rights organisations were forcibly shut by Israeli raids. Offices were ransacked, equipment confiscated and doors welded shut. Six were labelled terrorist organisations with no credible evidence. These are organisations working in areas such as human rights, prisoner support, children's rights and health care. On 30 August, an Israeli court sentenced Mohammad El Halabi, former head of operations at World Vision in Gaza, to 12 years in prison. He has been imprisoned despite several independent investigations showing no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. His sentence appeared to have only one purpose: to stop aid organisations from supporting the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza. Earlier this month, Israeli forces demolished a recently built Palestinian primary school in the Masafer Yatta region of the occupied West Bank, where residents are facing the ongoing threat of forced displacement. The school was demolished while in session, with students inside. The school demolition came days after an 18-year-old Palestinian student was shot dead by Israeli forces while he was on his way to school. With all this violence, death and injustice there is still no action from the Australian government. What is happening in Palestine is this: Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. Human Rights Watch has said it. Amnesty International has said it. The UN special rapporteur for Palestine has said it. The Australian government must loudly call out every injustice committed and firmly resist Israel's attempts to whitewash its crimes. We know from a recent report that the Israel lobby is in overdrive. In the last four years, Australian federal parliamentarians received more sponsored trips to Israel than any other country. As former Labor Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr, said, the trips, and other activities, have only one objective, and that's to see that no matter what Israel does it will never be criticised by Canberra. The Australian government should also increase funding to agencies like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, known as UNRWA. UNRWA supports 5.7 million Palestinian refugees, including providing education, medical clinics, food distribution and emergency assistance. Most of these people are stateless and living in poverty. Among them are more than half a million Palestinian children who UNRWA provides with education. Under the Labor government, Australia, quite rightly, became one of UNRWA's largest donors. But in 2018, the then US president Donald Trump abruptly halted US funding for UNRWA. Pathetically and predictably, our own Trump-wannabe PM at the time followed suit, halving our contributions from $20 million to $10 million. Thankfully, Labor has reversed the coalition cuts but the amount needs to be much higher. I urge the government to do the right thing and urgently increase the funding to $40 million per year. The Greens express our full solidarity with the Palestinian people and their struggle. I will always, unapologetically and proudly, stand against occupation and for Palestinian rights to self-determination. Tasmania: Christmas 101 21:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania This is the best time of the year: it's Christmas time, and I love it! It brings back many, many memories. I know that we won't get much more opportunity up here this week, so I just want to wish all those Tasmanians out there a really happy festive season. Please stay safe and I hope that you have a really great new year. I know that it has been a tough few years through COVID and I know that you're all trying to find your way to get back on your feet this year. I imagine that you're all really looking forward to this Christmas. I just want to tell a short story for all the females out there. If you're planning on doing a barbecue lunch or using your barbecue on Christmas Day, or if you're buying one for your husband or partner, and you think that you can put all the nuts and screws together, then I suggest you might want to get that ready about a week earlier. I can assure you—take it from somebody who knows from experience—that if you have a couple of drinks and you're still setting it up at 1 o'clock and don't yet have it together then it's probably going to end up on a table with the gas bottle hanging in the air! It's not a good idea! I also have a little tip for you men about the trampolines out there—a very difficult one! It's the springs. I watched my partner, the night before, say, 'No worries, darling, I'll get it done,' and then we were out there at 1 o'clock in the freaking morning, trying to put this bloody trampoline together! So when you buy things with nuts and bolts, please don't leave them until Christmas Eve because it doesn't always turn out as well as what you would hope. Senator Scarr 282997 Did you mix up the trampoline with the barbecue? Senator LAMBIE 250026 Yes, don't worry about the trampoline! You can have a bit of fun with your hubby the night before—put some bubbles and water on it, be my guest! No problem there. But, seriously, I really do wish all the Tasmanians down there a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I certainly wouldn't feel right, and neither would Tasmanians, if I didn't wish the rest of you mainlanders a happy new year and a merry Christmas too. I'll just remind you that I know we're at the bottom, but we're at the bottom for a reason. It's because we have to do all the heavy lifting! Merry Christmas to you all out there in Australia. Have a good one, have a safe one and have a fabulous new year. I can tell you that after coming out of COVID over a couple years and getting on our feet, surely next year just has to get bigger and better. Merry Christmas. The ACTING DEP 241710 And Merry Christmas to you, Senator Lambie. Tasmania: Christmas 102 21:49 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We're double-dipping—that's a very Tasmanian tradition as well! I'm brand new and I'm hoping that [inaudible] Tasmania and the Senate [inaudible]. Thank you so much for your kindness and for electing me: I truly appreciate it. It has been a great year—six months only, with 5½ years to go. I'm looking forward to spending time with my family, and I have had experience with the trampoline and the barbecue, so I reiterate what Senator Lambie said: plan, plan, plan! Have a drink, have a feed and spend time with your loved ones. That's the best bit for me—spending time: no presents, just spend time with me. And thank you, senators, for spending time with me. I know you're trapped sometimes! But I truly appreciate it. The Senate has been an experience that I would never, ever give up, and I will take for life the advice that you guys have given me: enjoy it, embrace it, do the best that you can with what you can. Thank you. I appreciate you. I hope that Tasmanians will give me a chance in the new year to do more for them. Speak to me, listen to me, tell me when I'm wrong, because I know you will do that. That's what Tasmanians do, Jacqui tells me all the time. Trust me, I wish I could shut her up, but, sadly, that's not happening! Have a Merry Christmas, a beautiful New Year, and I'll see you all back here next year for another year of fun and games. Merry Christmas and thank you. COVID-19: Vaccination 102 21:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Speaking as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the RMIT fact checkers jumped to the government's rescue last week when I asked questions about the reported decline in birthrates following the national COVID vaccine rollout. My questions were based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data that I posted on my website. My questions were about the validity of the ABS data I'd previously cited in Senate estimates hearings. Senator Gallagher replied that it would be investigated, and I would be advised of the outcome. I never heard anything more. Then I asked about it in question time and was give a similar response, including that the department had different data. Where from? Then the ABS clarified the data on their website, and the RMIT FactLab used that and information from unknown sources to fact-check my question. The minister has once again failed to address the data issue with my office. Was the RMIT FactLab used instead as a mouthpiece for the bureaucrats? Everyday Australians must be able to approach the next health challenge united as one community, not in a state of civil war, due in part to incomplete and competing data that is fuelling fierce opinions around the emotional issues of pregnancy, infant deaths and child deaths. We must fix this, or the next challenge will end just as badly. These birth figures appear to be incomplete on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, going back to July 2021—out-of-date data going back 18 months. Note that the data I was presenting in this graph here was monthly data. RMIT fact-checked annual data—absurd. There was a surge in births in the first half of 2021, with lockdown babies coming through. I mentioned that. Then there was a drop-off in the second half of the year. RMIT used annualised data to hide the marked midyear change. RMIT's fact checkers had to concede that the data I quoted supports my question. They said: The ABS data cited by Senator Roberts indeed shows that, after an uneventful first 10 months, registrations of births (by date of occurrence) were lower in the last two months of 2021. I checked and easily busted the fact checkers. The decline in long-term average birthrates started in July 2021—six months of decline, not two months. The ABS data cautioned that 'these numbers are incomplete due to the lag in registration' of births. This warning was attached after I raised this data with Senator Gallagher, not before. Birth data is collected weekly at the state level, and at 30 days is 95 per cent accurate. That's enough to publish provisional birth data, just as the ABS publishes provisional death data. To force policymakers to wait so long for the data that is needed to make good decisions is totally unacceptable, and so is the manner in which this government is accessing ABS data and guidance. My first supplementary question to Minister Gallagher on Monday asked how diligent the government was in obtaining critically important data in a conscientious manner. Her answer was off something like Yes Minister, using phrases like 'working closely with', and, if they saw something, they would say something. If I was the minister responsible for an emergency health response that included mandated vaccination and I knew these vaccinations were comprehensively challenged through peer reviewed science worldwide, indicating serious and fatal outcomes, I'd be glued to my bloody computer, waiting for the latest data on harm, births and deaths to check our response had been safe and effective. Two federal governments have clearly not done that. Perhaps Australians would trust the science more if that science was subjected to a little more scrutiny. To that end, I joined with Senators Hanson, Antic, Canavan and Rennick to sponsor a motion to force the government to publish its Pfizer contracts. It was the Greens—the 'My Body, My Choice' Greens—who joined with Labor to block the motion, ensuring that, when it comes to health, Big Brother knows best and there will be no dissent—no, not even questioning. I'm pursuing this line of questioning for a reason. It's been conclusively shown that the COVID vaccination can harm or interfere with a woman's reproductive system. In August 2022 a Lancet study confirmed a firm link between the COVID vaccination and menstrual irregularities. It found almost 64,000 respondents reported menstrual irregularities or vaginal bleeding. We know the vaccine builds up in a woman's reproductive system. We know it interferes with the normal functioning of the female reproductive system. We know that birth rates declined, coinciding with the vaccine rollout. No matter what Australian bureaucrats do, the research and science now underway worldwide will decide the truth and impacts of our COVID response. To exclude politics, this must be reviewed in a royal commission to get the truth. I look forward to the Senate's support for that. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation. I wish everyone around this beautiful planet, especially Queenslanders, a happy and safe Christmas. Neal, Mr Colin (Col) 103 21:55 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to pay my respects to Col Neal, a wonderful tip truck owner-driver who was the section head for the Transport Workers Union in New South Wales. Col was an owner-driver who spent a lot of his time going to excavation sites and demolition sites. He also organised workers as owner-drivers, making sure they got paid. That industry was one of the toughest industries in which to make sure you actually got paid. When I first met Col in the very early 1990s, Col was in a dispute; I was called down then as a full-time official for the Transport Workers Union, and he was in a dispute. People hadn't been paid for two months. They'd paid all their costs for fuel and their own wages. They'd tried to support their families, they'd paid for their trucking costs, and he was at another dispute trying to organise those payments to be properly made. He got a phone call from some workers—they had very early style mobile phones—to say that some owner-drivers at Wattle Grove had been underpaid. They said, 'How long before you get down here?' He said to them: 'Well, it will take us a couple of hours to sort this problem out here. The developer hasn't paid the contractor, the contractor hasn't paid the workers and the workers haven't been paid for two months, and they've gone through all these expenses.' The guy said, 'Well, you better get down here real quick because we won't be staying here for long.' Col said: 'If you want to go home, we'll meet tomorrow morning. That'll put some pressure on the employer to make sure they actually pay'—because he'd been waiting for a couple of months as well. The guy said, 'No; I've got a live grenade next to my foot.' Wattle Grove was an old site from an old Army base which had been turned into a housing estate, which I subsequently lived in some 10 years later—ironic! When we got down there, Col sorted the problem out. He was my mentor. He was a great supporter. He was a person who understood what it was like to be on the tools, and gave me a great understanding of what it was to be an independent owner-driver and that you stand together with your mates to make a difference. Thankfully his mate didn't get his foot blown off, and Col also got his payment for him. I had the great pleasure of being part of getting those payments made to one of his mates. Col was also a life member of the Transport Workers Union, as an active owner-driver. He was a member of the branch committee of management. He was a very outspoken person; he sometimes gave me a hard time, and that's probably not a bad thing because I always respected that. He was always honest even when I didn't agree with him, and he was always honest when I did agree with him. He was a great person to have around you because he could say to everybody in the union what they needed to be to make a difference. When Col turned 68, he sold his truck and retired. But such was his dedication to organising and supporting his tip truck drivers that he returned to the TWU's tip truck section on a part-time basis for many years. In 2012 I was proud to present Col with life membership of the union. Col continued to advocate on behalf of drivers. When the previous Liberal government threatened to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, Col said: 'The Howard government tried to take away our rights at work but we stood and fought back. In 2007 we turfed them out. I'm not going to lay down and watch WorkChoices return, and I'm not going to stand by and see my kids and grandkids get ripped off.' While we didn't win the fight against the abolition of the RSRT, today we have broad support from owner-drivers and road transport employees, clients, academics and even gig companies to empower the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards in the sector. It's people like Col who actually say the fight was worth fighting. This is a major accomplishment, reflective of the decades of hard work from Col and others like him who advocated on behalf of owner-drivers and what he taught all of us. When we get down to the next year, that will form part of Col's legacy. Col also had some tremendous accomplishments outside his working life, most importantly his long and happy marriage to his wife, Ros, who is such a wonderful, wonderful human being. (Time expired) Youth Voice in Parliament Week 104 22:00 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I'm delighted to have been asked to read out the speeches of several intelligent, passionate and articulate young people from Queensland as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. The first speech that I'm going to read out this evening is by Lillian, who writes about listening to the voices of young people. Lillian writes: If you were to imagine the country run by today's youth, what would it look like? Young people are passionate and have a lot to say but often don't get the opportunity to voice their opinions. We are socially conscious and in touch with the world through social media, the news, our families, our teachers and the people around us. My name is Lillian Goodwin. I am 15 years old and I live in Emerald, Queensland. My electorate is Flynn. I feel that youth deserve more of a voice than what they are given. It gives the opportunity to passionate youth to make a difference. Many young people are speaking at climate change conferences and helping run protests. They are making a difference in their communities. I am not focusing on one issue as everything ultimately affects us. What I do believe is that giving the youth an opportunity to have their voices heard may inspire them to become more invested in what is happening in the world today. Involving more youth in the decision-making process would mean that Australia may look different. Having more youth-led initiatives would impact the social perception of young people because we have so much to say and so much to offer. Young people deserve the chance to have their viewpoints considered. My hope is that through youth representation, Australia's new parliament will grow to be more inclusive. Thank you. My second speech is by a young man named Evan, who writes about listening to regional young people on housing, homelessness and the cost of living. Evan writes: Hi, my name is Evan Townson. I'm 14 years old and I was born in Gordonvale in Far North Queensland. Gordonvale is a small town twenty kilometres from Cairns and it is surrounded by sugarcane farms. My favourite pastimes are fishing, camping, hunting, and playing online games. Gordonvale is one of the best places to live in my opinion, because all of my favourite pastimes are available to me. From my perspective as a 14 year old boy these are some of the things I would like parliament to accomplish. Young people are not listened to enough. Even though young people have limited life experience, we do have our views on things from our perspectives as we see the effects of decisions made by parliament. Children and young people are entirely reliant on adults as we have no access to money and no influences on the decisions being made. I am concerned about the rise of poverty and the rise of homelessness in my area. With the cost of everything increasing, I can see the struggle my parents are going through. They work hard to keep a roof over our head and food on our table. My concern is if this is how hard it is to do now how hard will it be to do when I'm an adult. Every child and young person has the right to have access to a roof over their head, food on their table, access to quality and engaging education, and supporting adults in their lives. Another thing I am concerned about for my future is the effects of climate change and how this may affect what I'm able to do in the future. Although I can see that this is being done now by the parliament recently, but I think more can be done. Us young people today may not have all the answers but we need to be heard because it's our future that parliament is deciding. Parliament needs to hear more from young Australians. Parliament needs to have a bigger representation of young people from different backgrounds, especially those that are vulnerable. With this in mind, the decisions the parliament makes now will determine my future and what it consists of. Will I have an opportunity to have my own home, a family, a good job and continue to do the things that I love? Or will the decisions Parliament makes today make this just an impossible dream? Please don't just listen but hear us young people and please invest in our future. Thank you, Lillian and Evan. Workplace Relation: Amazon, Victoria: Racing Industry 105 22:05 Senator CICC 281503 Victoria ONE (—) (): I know many Australians have been looking around for a bargain as Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales continue this week, but this evening I want to shine a light on the behaviour of the company that's been responsible for spreading Black Friday sales around the world, and that's Amazon. We've all heard horrible stories about Amazon workers unable to take bathroom breaks and literally running between shelves in order to meet the company's ridiculous performance targets. It's clear Amazon has a long way to go in recognising workers' rights in Australia. The SDA union, where I've been a proud member and an industrial officer prior to coming to parliament, brought a case before the Federal Court on behalf of Amazon workers when an employee's job offer was withdrawn after she told the company that she was pregnant. They reached a financial settlement earlier this year. On Black Friday last year, Amazon called the police to try and have TWU officials, who were investigating safety concerns, removed from their warehouse in Western Sydney. Again, another clear example that Amazon has a long way to go in recognising workers' rights in this country. The Amazon Global Union Alliance is calling out Amazon for its terrible conduct. It's squeezing every last drop from the workers who are responsible for the company's success. This behaviour is even more reprehensible at a time when working people right around the world are struggling with the cost of living crisis. I could not attend due to the Senate sitting last week, but I was proud to see the SDA union and the TWU rallying outside the Amazon warehouse in my home state of Victoria, in Dandenong. They had a very clear message: these workers are undervalued and their practices are unsafe and un-Australian. I don't begrudge anyone trying to score a bargain as the sales continue, but I do urge all Australians to consider the workers that are behind the sales, behind the websites, to purchase from much more responsible businesses if you are able to do so. I also want to draw the chamber's attention tonight to a very large contribution to the Victorian economy, and that is the racing industry, particularly in many regional communities. The Size and Scope of the Victorian Racing Industry Report, released early this year, found that the industry contributes nearly $4.7 billion of value to the Victorian economy and over half this value is added in regional areas. We all know the enormous recreational and tourism benefits of the racing industry, but it is also an integral part of many local economies throughout Victoria. Much of this economic benefit is generated primarily through race days. While racing has been impacted by COVID-19, like almost every other industry, prior to the pandemic more than 1.8 million people attended a race day in a year, with over half a million of these people attending a regional race day. This significant contribution to regional tourism cannot be overstated. I'm glad the minister for tourism is in the chamber this evening. In addition to race days, the industry generates ongoing employment for thousands of Victorians, and this independent report shows that more than 147,000 jobs are supported by the Victorian racing industry and over half of the full-time jobs are in regional Victoria. In this place we often hear about how difficult it is to find secure, full-time work in regional Australia, so the racing industry is a very important provider of employment in these areas. More than 8,500 volunteers also participate in racing, and I think this demonstrates a significant contribution to our community and community support for these very, very important race days and this important industry. I love hearing races and heading to races whenever I can go along, with almost two million other folks in Victoria. It is always a great day out watching the years of hard work by the stable hands, the trainers, the breeders, the jockeys and others coming together to celebrate what they love on the track. I do look forward to seeing the industry grow and support the Victorian economy for many years to come. Senate adjourned at 22:09