2022-12-01 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 1 December 2022

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

 

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022 1

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I welcome the opportunity to reintroduce this bill today, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022, and to continue our efforts to get big money out of politics. If passed, this bill would stop dirty industries with a track record of seeking to influence decision-makers through donations: the fossil fuel, banking and defence sectors, and the pharmaceutical, liquor, tobacco and gambling industries. It would stop them from making political donations to buy outcomes to suit them. This bill would also limit the amount that can be donated by individuals and all other entities to $3,000 per electoral term, minimising the opportunity for anybody's big money to buy outcomes. There has never been a more important time for donation reform. Our democracy is in trouble. Public trust in parliament and politicians is at an all-time low, and the community feel less and less confident that their representatives represent them, as opposed to the corporate donors. It's no wonder. In the past decade, $230 million have flowed in corporate donations to the Labor, Liberal and National parties from the likes of the big banks; from industries like mining, defence and big pharma; from property developers; and from alcohol, tobacco and gambling companies. These are just some of the industries that have paid the Liberal, National and Labor parties to put their private profits ahead of the needs of our community. These industries are not donating millions of dollars because they believe in the institution of strong democracy. They are donating because it gets results for them. The Greens have maintained the Democracy for Sale website for over a decade, tracking publicly disclosed political donations and putting the spotlight on influence peddling. In 2018 the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations laid out examples of the nexus between donations made by industry bodies and public policy outcomes or project approvals. The cosy relationships and the proximity of donations and policy outcomes that boost industry profits suggest undue influence. The community continues to pay the price through climate inaction, propping up destructive gambling practices and governments that refuse to make corporations pay their fair share of tax so that everyday people can get the education, health care, dental care, and income support that they need. Until we break the hold of dirty donations over the big parties—over all parties—big corporations will keep winning and the community will keep losing. Recognising the corrosive influence of donations from the development sector and the influence that they had on planning policy, infrastructure and development, the Queensland and New South Wales governments have legislated to restrict political donations from property developers. The High Court has upheld those regulations, and this bill seeks to extend those to the federal arena, but it also recognises the influence of other key industries. Since 2012, the fossil fuel and resources industries have donated over $9 million to both of the major political parties. The Australia Institute estimates that, in 2021-22 alone, Australian governments handed out $11.6 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel giants in things like grants, loans, cheap fuel and accelerated depreciation. That was $1.3 billion more than in the previous year, despite there being a COVID crisis that saw so many ordinary Australians struggling to make ends meet—what a great return on investment. Rather than turning off the tap in the most recent budget, the new Labor government gifted $1.9 billion of new money for gas in the Northern Territory, on top of continuing the nearly $40 billion in Morrison government fossil fuel subsidies, including $40 million for fuel tax credits enjoyed by that industry—again, a very good return on investment for fossil fuel donors and a terrible deal for the climate and the rest of us. Generous donations bought a Liberal government at the time that was completely paralysed by the words 'climate change' at the same time as the Australian community was facing a future of more extreme bushfires, crippling droughts and floods. Donations continue to cloud the judgement of the Albanese government as new coal and gas projects keep getting approvals and public money. The gas industry donates millions of dollars, so it was no surprise when the former Prime Minister appointed his gas industry mates to a National COVID Coordination Commission without even needing to declare their conflicts of interest. It was also no surprise that the commission ultimately called for a gas led recovery that directly benefited the gas industry, despite strong support for a renewables led recovery from scientists, economists and policy analysts. Again, the community lost the opportunity for a sustainable recovery, because governments are beholden to fossil fuel donors. The cozy relationships and financial support have led to a situation where, despite overwhelming scientific and economic evidence, we will not even reach the weak 43 per cent emissions reductions targets unless we end our attachment to fossil fuels. The Albanese government refuses to rule out any of the 113 coal and gas projects that are currently under consideration. In fact, they continue to hand out public money to support destructive new projects in the Beetaloo basin, Scarborough and more. We saw the bullying tactics by the Minerals Council kill the Rudd government's mining super profits tax, and now we're seeing the Minerals Council use the same tactics against the Queensland Labor government's current plans to get resources companies to pay more. Those threats only work because the major parties rely on donations. The possibility generous donations will be withdrawn is the leverage the industry uses to keep governments in check. The banking and financial sector is also a regular contributor and beneficiary. The sector has donated about $76 million since 2012 to both sides of politics. That support secured them immunity for some time, despite the evidence of customers being ripped off around the country. Both of the major parties had to be dragged to the banking royal commission—something the Greens had campaigned for since 2014—following scandal after scandal and public backlash over their inaction. How much faster would the commission have happened if the Liberal, National and Labor parties weren't on the payroll of the banks? Would we have seen stronger action in response to the scathing royal commission report? The gambling industry is another significant donor to state and federal political parties. Their influence can be seen in the deeply entrenched support for poker machines throughout Australia, including exemptions for clubs from COVID restrictions, even when so many other venues suffered and despite the human suffering and toll that the gambling industry wreaks on ordinary people. Property developers also continue to throw their donations weight around while fighting against planning restrictions or tax reforms or stronger environmental law. In Queensland, a destructive proposal for a canal estate within the Ramsar listed Toondah wetlands that are the gateway to Minjerribah—as Meanjin folk know Stradbroke Island—should never have gotten past the first hurdle. The federal environment department recommended that the project be rejected as clearly unacceptable. Yet the property developer, Walker Corporation, was a generous political donor and—hey presto!—the minister then allowed the deeply flawed proposal to proceed through the assessment phase. It was not rejected at the outset, as the department had suggested it should be. The minister at the time, who was Mr Frydenberg, even explored the possibility of changing the Ramsar boundaries to accommodate the proposal. We have the documentary evidence of that. I live in hope that the new environment minister will finally reject this destructive proposal, but the local community should never have had to fight so hard and for so long against such a clearly unacceptable development. These are only the donations that we know about, none of which has been illegal. It doesn't include the money paid to attend business forums or 'cash for access' meetings. It ignores the exorbitant subscription or membership fees, and it doesn't include money funnelled through representative and fundraising bodies. Regardless of the source or the amount, the obvious expectation from industry is that donations will return results. They're buying outcomes. This feeds the public perception that decisions in this place are made improperly, with self-interest and with the interests of donors or mates consistently overriding the public interest. In banning political donations from those industries that have a history of seeking to influence policy decisions, this bill implements a key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations. It would make it an offence for a prohibited donor to make a donation or solicit another person to make a donation on their behalf. It would also be an offence to accept a donation from a prohibited donor. Another committee recommendation that this bill seeks to implement is to limit other political donations to $3,000 in an election term, or $1,000 per year. As the High Court recognised in McCloy v New South Wales, the uncontrolled use of wealth to influence decision-making compromises equal participation in democracy. By aggregating and capping political donations made by any person or entity, this bill seeks to level the playing field and avoid those with more money getting greater access to decision-makers. The bill will limit donations made for political purposes but is not intend to limit donations made to third parties to support their non-campaign activities. The important work done by civil society organisations, many of them charities, must be allowed to continue. We will continue to call for the introduction of electoral expenditure caps to balance the participation of civil society organisations in the political process. This bill complements other reforms to strengthen the disclosure regime that the government has finally committed to acting on, including lowering the disclosure thresholds and requiring real-time disclosure of donations, so people aren't waiting 18 months to find out who's buying who. The Greens strongly support these measures, but we recognise that transparency alone will not remove the corrupting influence of political donations. The 2022 election results confirm that the Australian public want more transparent and representative governments that act in the public interest. This bill is an important first step towards getting big money out of politics and restoring public confidence in our democracy. If we are committed to enhancing the democratic process—which is, surely, something that every parliament should regularly turn its mind to—this should be a priority. This bill does not stifle debate or prevent individuals from donating a small amount to support a political party; it bans donations from industries that have become associated with having a corrupting influence on how we work as decision-makers. It will return democracy to the community. Democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder, and it's about time that we banned those big corrupting donations to political parties and capped the amount that anyone can donate to support a political party or grouping of their choice. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Democracy is precious. It's one of the most important features of our obligations here in the Senate to think carefully about the work that we do here and the way that it protects and bolsters our really proud legacy as a multicultural, democratic nation with a universal franchise, and we should always be thinking carefully about the way that our system supports and recognises that. One of the puzzling things about being a participant in debates in this chamber over the last few years is the consistent approach that the Greens political party takes to democratic institutions, because almost every occasion that sees the Senate debate these questions sees members of the Greens political party come into this chamber and talk endlessly about how democracy is broken. Strangely, for a party that I think would see democracy as a core part of their tenets, the Greens political party choose always to assert that democracy doesn't work, and I would invite Greens senators to carefully reflect on the consequences on that narrative. One of the interesting things I observe, from sitting in this part of the chamber as a member of a party of government and sitting on that side of the chamber as a member of a major political party that seeks to form government and enact change through the institution of government, is very close relationships between the rhetorical positioning of members who sit on this side of the crossbench and members who sit on that side of the crossbench, because what the Greens political party and One Nation have in common is a determination to tell their voters and their supporters that democracy doesn't work. That's the basis of their pitch to voters. It's important we talk about our democratic institutions. We'll always welcome that conversation, and I do thank the Greens for putting it on the agenda today. But I invite you as a political party to think about the consequences of that contribution and to reflect on the similarities between your own approach and the rhetorical approach taken by some of the people that I know you do not agree with. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Shoebridge, I look forward to your second reading when it comes. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The truth is that electoral reform requires support from across the parliament. In August this year, as is always the case after an election, the Special Minister of State asked the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into and report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2022 federal election, and I think the terms of that referral are important and significant and provide an important opportunity for all senators in this chamber to participate in a structured way in a dialogue with other political parties and civil society about how we best conduct elections. But it is worth looking at the terms, because they refer to reforms to political donation laws, particularly the applicability of real-time disclosure and a reduction of the disclosure threshold to a fixed $1,000; potential reforms to the funding of elections, particularly regarding electoral expenditure caps and public funding of political parties and candidates; and the potential for truth in political advertising laws to enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. As a government we are interested in exploring with the parliament the ways that we can improve and enhance our electoral systems, and we're interested in doing that in a collaborative way, not in a way that seeks to score cheap political points off political opponents. The truth is that we are very proud as a party of the contribution that we have made in leading reforms to electoral laws. It was Labor that secured the ban on foreign donations, protecting our political system from foreign interference. It was Labor's amendments that linked public funding to campaign expenditure, preventing parties from profiting from the political system. You can go back to Bob Hawke in 1983; Labor, under Prime Minister Hawke, introduced a donations disclosure regime for the first time. It's a Labor reform, and we do those things because we know that transparency is the key to preventing and identifying corruption. I think that those are shared values across the chamber, or at least I hope that they are. It's why we continue to drive a reform agenda. It's actually Labor, not the opposition or the Greens, who have been driving the agenda for political donation reform over a very long time, driving the agenda for transparency and driving the agenda for government accountability. It was Labor who fought for that ban on foreign political donations. The Liberal Party didn't want to stop taking donations from foreign sources, despite the risk of foreign influence to our democracy, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept those amendments. It was Labor, of course, who protected charities— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Wasn't in New South Wales. The CHAIR: Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 I do want to draw your attention to interjections persistently coming from Senator Shoebridge. I know you have already raised the matter directly with him in the chamber, but I do ask that you draw his attention to your ruling earlier. The CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, please exercise restraint. Senator McALLISTER 121628 It is Labor working to protect charities and not-for-profits from the legislation from the previous government that sought to silence and suppress their political advocacy. It's Labor again delivering an independent anticorruption commission. We in this chamber should hold ourselves to the highest standards. We should be concerned about the persistent data and information that comes to us about declining trust in public institutions. I would like to see this chamber firmly commit to an entirely cross-party approach to improving the standard of democratic institutions and improving trust in the parliament and all of the institutions of government. But I make the point that I began with. I think it's important that we talk up our democracy. I think we should talk up how incredibly successful we are in having transparent elections conducted with integrity, with universal franchise and which the public has confidence in. I don't think it's helpful to constantly and repeatedly assert that those processes are not working for Australians. I do think it has real consequences when people persist in that approach. We will take a different approach. It is to say that we have done well but we can always do better. Everyone in this chamber has the opportunity to do so. I note the process that is on foot at the moment through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, but this is an important opportunity for a conversation, and I look forward to the contributions from other senators. 09:22 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Imagine waking up a Green! Imagine waking up as a member of the Greens of Australia. You'd wake up each morning and be so angry with the world. They wake up and they just punch the pillows because they're so angry with the world. I feel sorry for the Greens—'Woe is me that Australia is such a bad place, that we're all going to hell in a handcart. And guess what's going to make Australia a better place. We're going to stop someone who owns a pub from giving a donation to a political party.' That's what this bill is about. This bill is about stopping someone who owns a pub, whether it's the Queen's Arm, the Sandy Creek pub down the road from me, the Einasleigh Hotel—any of the many pubs across Queensland. If the publican and their family want to give $50 or $100 to a local political party, whether it's the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato Party, the Greens, the LNP or Labor—but no. You own a pub, you support so many community groups, but you can't give $50 or $100 to your local political party, because stopping people who own pubs from giving donations is going to make Australia a better place! The CHAIR: Senator Waters, a point of order? Senator Waters 192970 A point of order on misleading the Senate. The limit is $1,000 a year, and I'm sure Senator McGrath will get enough free booze anyway based on previous years. The CHAIR: Thank you for alerting Senator McGrath to the clauses in the bill. I haven't read the bill, but I think Senator McGrath was not necessarily referring to the maximum. But anyway. Senator McGRATH 217241 You're very lucky, Deputy President. If you do read the bill, it's about five minutes of your life you're not going to get back in a hurry. So I'd suggest you go for a walk— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It's my choice, Senator McGrath, what I do with my life. Senator McGRATH 217241 pat a cat or kiss a dog. Do something like that. But do not read this bill, because this is a waste of space and a waste of time, in writing. That is what this is. People wonder what people in Canberra get up to. Well, guess what? We waste time on pointless bills like this that want to stop law-abiding Australians from supporting the political party or the political cause of their choice. That's what this is about. This is about the Greens, who've become the puritans of Australian politics. Soon, we're going to be all walking around like the 'brides of green'. We'll be wearing dark-green or soft-green outfits, covering up any bodily features, because the Greens have become so puritanical in wanting to stop people from having fun unless it's their type of fun. Quite frankly, I don't care what the Greens get up to in their spare time—I'm a libertarian. If they want to do things behind closed doors with the windows shut, they can do it. But this bill would apply to someone involved in a legal industry, such as a pub—because pubs are terrible places, aren't they, ladies and gentlemen! This shows how out of touch the Greens are. I'm someone who sends out a pub calendar each year. I pay for them myself and send out pub calendars. Because guess what pubs do? Pubs are actually community groups. Pubs are community organisations. Country pubs do so much for their local organisations. I look at the pubs in my district in the Darling Downs. If you go past a pub, often you'll see a tonne of cars out the front at 11 o'clock in the morning. You'll think, 'Jeez, people are starting early today.' But do you know what it is? Often they're having community meetings there. They're using the pub as the local community hall to talk about Landcare or about issues impacting the local community. That is because pubs are the bastion of their local community. Under this bill by the Greens, they don't want those people supporting political parties or supporting political causes. Heaven help me—publicans are such bad people! If you don't think that people should participate in the democratic process, why don't you just ban them? Go and ban pubs. This is why the Greens are the puritans of Australian politics. They don't want you to have fun. They want to ban stuff that they don't like. They're quite happy to sit in their darkened corners and munch on a bit of moss and talk to each other about the grand old days when Bob Brown was leader: 'Wasn't it fantastic? We stopped everything from happening in Tasmania. Isn't it brilliant? The unemployment rate's up to 20 per cent under our policies.' That's what the Greens are all about because they're the party of misery. Imagine waking up as a green each morning. I suppose it could be worse; you could wake up next to a green! But anyway. I have wasted five or 10 minutes of my life reading this bill. Another episode of Andor hasn't come out. Andor is a great series for those people who are watching it. I got up to episode 12 last week. I've got to wait for the next season to come out. The Greens also want to stop people from giving money to political parties if they are involved in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. So they want to stop pharmacists. They want to stop chemists. They want to stop community pharmacy. The other bastion of regional towns, suburbs and villages across Australia—those evil people!—is pharmacists. Do you know who makes up one of the most trusted professions in Australia? Pharmacists. Community pharmacy. The Greens want to stop community pharmacists—those people who do so much for the health and wellbeing of Australians. They want to stop that evil industry of pharmacists from getting involved in the political process by supporting a political cause. Are you serious? What were you on when you wrote this? You were probably on something that was prescribed to you by a pharmacist, and you overdosed on it, or, quite frankly, you should go to a pharmacist and get some medication to stop you from writing such rubbish. This is just bonkers stuff. There are so many more important issues in Australia at the moment that I'm sure this chamber could be united on to make the best country in the world that much better. Quite frankly, being a bunch of wowsers on heat and wandering down the main streets of the towns and villages of Australia, being these puritans stopping law-abiding citizens from participating in the democratic process does not assist. It doesn't help democracy at all. What this does is stop people from participating in democracy. It stops law-abiding people from participating in democracy, and that is not a good thing. I refer to the comments of Senator McAllister. The government, as is the case after each election, regardless of the political colours of the government, write to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and ask it to conduct an inquiry into the previous election. There are specific terms of reference, which Senator Farrell has put in his letter, asking the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into. I sit on this committee along with Senator Cadell, and we are taking a very serious and sober look into the running of the 2022 election and also into the proposals that the Labor Party have outlined. It won't surprise people in the chamber to know that we do oppose many of the proposals that have been put forward by the Labor Party—for example, giving New Zealanders and other foreigners the right to vote in Australian elections. We oppose that. We certainly will oppose spending caps because we do not believe spending caps will assist in promoting a pluralistic democracy. When you look at what's happened in Queensland, where the state elections are not run on an electoral system that is fair—there is a financial gerrymander, because political parties are capped at spending $15 million but unions are capped at $10 million. There are 26 registered unions in Queensland. There's one Labor Party, there is one Liberal-National Party and there are the Greens and various other minor parties. What it means is that those on the centre right of politics are capped at spending $15 million in an electoral cycle, but for those on the Left—the Greens, Labor and 26 unions—well, 26 times 10 is 260. For those who are arithmetically challenged, that's $260 million that the unions can spend in campaigning against the election of a Liberal-National Party plus $30 million from the Greens. That's $290 million, whereas my party is limited to $15 million. That is a complete and utter financial gerrymander. There is no fair electoral system in Queensland. One of the proposals that I suspect Labor may bring forward will be a financial gerrymander at a federal level. That would not be fair and it would not be appropriate. What is also not fair and not appropriate is to bring in a similar financial gerrymander that locks out those who are engaged in legal industries from participating in the democratic process. If the Greens don't think that someone who is involved in defence industry or in a financial institution or has a pub or is in the resource sector or runs a chemist or is a property developer or anything like that should participate in the democratic process, it shows their Stalinist approach to a pluralist democracy, but it also shows their failure to understand how the Australian economy works, because you are talking about tens of thousands of people—indeed, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Australians—who depend on these industries. What the Greens are saying is that you might work for your local pub, but you're a bad person because you work for a pub. We don't like pubs because we don't like fun. We don't like people getting out and enjoying themselves. We don't think your pub should be able to donate or support the political party of your choice, unless it's the Greens, because, let's face it, the Greens want to turn us into a one-party state. Being a member of the Greens party is just a massive example of waking up in a bed by yourself. This is what the Greens want to do to Australia: you can only have thoughts that the Greens agree with, you can only have beliefs that the Greens agree with and you can only support causes that the Greens agree with. Now, if you want to support the Greens—because, quite frankly, you are one chromosome short of the village idiot—go ahead and do it. That is your choice. I'm not going to stop you from doing that. If you want to support my party, or Labor or any of the minor parties, do it. I encourage people to get involved in the political process. I encourage people to join political parties or causes of their choice. I'm not going to stop you doing it. I don't want to stop you doing it; we need more people to get involved in Australia's democracy, not fewer people. We need to stop shaming people. Quite frankly, how many people work in the resource sector? I reckon it's almost 300,000 people whose jobs depend on the resource sector. So they say to them: 'Well, too bad. You can't really work there.' We're talking about people who work in the financial sector—probably also 300,000 people—and we're talking about people who work in the property sector, probably talking about another 200,000 Australians. Then we're talking about the hundreds of thousands of people who work in chemists and pharmacies across Australia. We're saying to those people: 'You're not worthy. You're not worthy of participating in Australia's democracy, because we don't like you—because we're the Greens. We're the puritans. We're pure. We wouldn't do anything wrong.' Well, the more someone tells me that they're pure, the more someone tells me that they're righteous and the more someone tells me that they're on the side of all that is good then the more I check my back pocket to make sure I've not been pickpocketed by them and the more I make sure I go to my house and make sure my TV hasn't been nicked by them! This is what the Greens are all about. They sit in the peanut gallery, they throw rocks and stones at the parties of government, say how terrible we all are and how terrible Australia is. They run down Australia; they run down Australia from a democratic perspective and they run down Australia from a financial perspective, because their party is the politics of grievance. Their politics is angry politics. Their politics is not about what's doing best for Australia it's about what's doing best for the Green political movement. They want to stop people who run chemists and who run pharmacies. They want to stop people who run country pubs from getting involved in the political process. This is what the Greens movement has come to. I don't know what Bob Brown is doing at the moment, but he could basically become a wind turbine at the moment in terms of oscillating around with his disappointment with the modern Greens movement—that they've shifted from the great environmental battles of the 1980s and 1990s to become the party of just: 'Nah, the computer says no. We're a bunch of puritans. We don't want you to have fun. We don't want people who own pubs or run country pubs to get involved with the political process.' This is a waste of the Senate's time. Go back and do better, Greens. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thanks for the entertainment, Senator McGrath. 09:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to commend Senator Waters on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022. Clearly, if you want to trigger the major parties, just bring up meaningful political donation reform. This is the inconvenient truth in Australian politics, that we're in a situation where companies are gaming the political system, a system that is about Australians casting their vote and every vote having the same value. That is now being co-opted by companies across this country to buy political influence. Four of the five last federal elections have been won by the major party with the biggest war chest. I would suggest that this is not a direction we want to head down. Australians want meaningful reform when it comes to political donations. Australians want to know their politicians are making decisions based on what is good for their communities, not just on what may be good for their donor. Senator McGrath talked about how this will limit people being able to participate in democracy and donate. On the contrary, this makes it more accessible to Australians, to actual people. Corporations are not people, and corporations are gaming the political system. Reading this bill, I tend to think $3,000 per person per term is a fairly level playing field. We don't want to be in a situation where, because you have more wealth, you can donate far more than the average Australian could ever afford to donate. Clearly, when we allow corporations to donate they can outspend almost all but maybe the richest Australians. This is about returning democracy to the Australian people. People in the resources sector, workers who work in mining, making personal donations to the political party of their choice is not the same as resource companies making large political donations to the major parties. In the last three years the Liberals have accepted just over $2.3 million from fossil fuel companies. Labor have accepted just over $1.1 million. The Nationals have accepted $221,000. That's $3.7 million of money that is clearly influencing the debate on crucial issues like global warming, like this parliament's response to what we're seeing on the news every day now, with worsening climate impacts, with a climate that is breaking down. We're seeing weather we haven't seen before; we're moving into a new climate. Clearly this isn't a good way to make decisions that are going to benefit everyday Australians and future generations. Political donation reform is something that Australians want. People in communities across the country are calling for it. Today we're seeing the vested interests in the major parties. Senator McAllister 121628 It's nonsense! Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 That may be nonsense, Senator McAllister. Let's take gambling as an example. I'm sure senators here would receive a fair bit of correspondence about gambling. There are Australians across the country very worried about the impact gambling is having—gambling advertising, specifically—on children. The statistics show it is having a huge negative impact on young people. We know that. Government agencies have the data, saying there are a large percentage of children now who think gambling is something that adults do, that it is normal. We're seeing children who are 16 and 17 not just gambling but being at risk of problem gambling before they are even legally allowed to gamble. Yet neither of the major parties are willing to implement the gambling advertising reform that most Australians want. Most Australians do not want to put on sport and see gambling advertising when they're watching with their children. Yet when we try and get the new government to take that seriously we get a change in slogans. You cannot tell me that all this money that is flowing into the major political parties from the gaming and gambling industry lobby is not having an effect. If we were listening to everyday Australians we'd be saying: 'This is a huge problem. It is not good for the future of our country. So, we're going to have a response that deals with it.' Experts have said that one of the things that should be done is to ban any gambling advertising in the hours that children watch television, as we've done with other products that are harmful. Yet we get this lukewarm response. So, Senator McAllister, I simply do not accept your interjection that this has no effect. Clearly it does. We could say the same when it comes to climate politics in Australia. This has become a political football. We've seen the fossil fuel industry use politicians, political parties, to kick this problem down the road, to the point where we are now in a crisis and we're going to have to do things that rise to the level of crisis that we're facing, whereas if we had had a parliament that was connected to everyday Australians, connected to the science, willing to listen, then we could have started to deal with this a long time ago. It would have been a much steadier and simpler transition. So I would urge the major parties to reconnect with Australians, to reconnect with the people we are all in here to represent. My sense from talking to people in the ACT is that political donation reform is right up there. People realise that our political system is being gamed, that companies have huge influence in this building. They walk the halls, they walk into politicians' offices, they make donations and they run events. We have to deal with this. I welcome the government's openness to review this and to look into it, and I look forward to having the kind of reform that is being called for by everyday Australians and by experts who have looked at this issue for a long time. This is not a new issue or concern. Both sides of politics have been in government in recent history. Clearly, as with having a National Anti-Corruption Commission, which was on the back of the Greens and Independents pushing for that for a long time, it's politically inconvenient but it's good for Australia. As senators we have a duty to do what is good for the people we represent, not the party whose line we vote along. That's our huge challenge, for all of us. I commend Senator Waters for continuing to push this issue. It resonates with everyday Australians. The longer we leave this, the more we're going to see Australians starting to find candidates who are willing to stand up and say: 'We can do better. We can return our democracy to the people. We can have rules in place that ensure that it is a level playing field, that big companies can't donate hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars which clearly are having an effect, and it's inconvenient on both sides. In 2021 the biggest donor to the coalition was Pratt Holdings, with more than $1.2 million in donations to the Liberal Party. On the Labor side the biggest support came from its associated entities and several unions, including the SDA, the UWU and the CFMMEU, who donated $3.67 million collectively. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Again, Senator Ciccone, I appreciate your interjection and I really welcome the renewed focus on political donations now we're seeing tens of thousands of Australians making donations to independents and minor parties. For the first time that I can remember we had the former Prime Minister in the campaign talking about it, highlighting the need to tackle political donations. Indeed, we now have a government that is committed to doing that. Let's remember that there is a clear difference between Australians donating their own money in a personal capacity, versus companies or unions donating. I sense there's an appetite to go back to having rules that make it a level playing field and that ensure that everyday Australians have the ability to donate should they want to. We don't want to stop that, but we do want to stop the undue influence that is clearly being seen and is playing out in the way that we are dealing with some of the really big and thorny issues we face, like action on climate, what our response to gambling is. We are the biggest losers in the world when it comes to gambling—$25 billion or so a year. I commend this bill. On behalf of people in the ACT I represent, I will keep pushing this. This is something that is important to people in the ACT. They want to see meaningful action. They're sick of seeing decisions being made that aren't in the best interests of Australians. They're sick of having governments that argue that the government doesn't have a duty of care to future generations. If we don't have a duty of care to future generations, what are we here for? This is a meaningful way of putting checks and balances and added transparency in place so that Australians can look at this place and say, 'I can be more confident now that decisions are being made that are going to benefit me and my family and my children, and their future and their children's children, rather than some big gambling or fossil fuel company that can spray $100,000 a year to buy a bit of influence in this place. I commend this bill. 09:53 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak to this bill, which is basically laced with hypocrisy. This bill does nothing. It's got one side of the picture, in terms of private sector, but doesn't mention anything about money coming from unions or super funds. It doesn't mention anything about the inherent influence inside bureaucracies. I know that the promoter of this bill worked for the Environmental Defenders Office for about a decade. Of course, she's one of many left-wing Marxists in the bureaucracy who get paid by the taxpayer to be impartial, but I have no doubt that this is a scheme that's employed by the left—whenever you talk about any environmental stuff, they always run off to the Environmental Defenders Office and then use the law—'lawfare'—to effectively shut down any sort of new production. We have this slur going around 'we can't have money from fossil fuel donors'. Somehow a diesel fuel rebate is some sort of a rort. If you want to know what a rort is, it's the people who live in these inner-city houses. The biggest tax expenditure discount in the budget is the CGT grant on wealthy houses in inner-city electorates. Yet these same hypocrites come in here and call the diesel fuel rebate, incurred by producers who don't go anywhere near a road, a rort. That is not the case at all. When farmers plant their crops, they don't go anywhere near a road. I myself am from a farm of 150,000 acres. It can take you two hours to get to the boundary just to go and check your water. We would drive thousands of kilometres a year just to check our bores, and we're meant to pay for roads we don't use. How is this somehow a rort? I notice there's a key word in there—that we're going exclude people that volunteer their time. The thing is, in the private sector, if you didn't know, small businesses work seven days a week, 24 hours a day. They don't always have the time to help the parties. That's why they decide to give money. 'We'd love to help you out. We don't actually have the time, but use it for advertising or whatever.' There's an implication that all donations are bad. I don't like gambling any more than a lot of people in this chamber, but the fact of the matter is that that was brought in by a crony deal between the Goss Labor government; Kevin Rudd, who was the chief of staff at the time; and the unions, who wanted to bring gambling into Queensland. What have we got for it? I tell you what regional Queensland got for it: nothing. What we got was a lot of heartache. In my home town of Chinchilla, when I was growing up, we didn't have any poker machines in the pubs, but we had a maternity ward and we had a council. We don't have a maternity ward or a council anymore, but we've got poker machines. So no-one's going to be influencing me—and no-one does influence me when it comes to donations. Another thing that this bill completely overlooks is the influence of lobbyists, who don't have to disclose how much people pay them. You want to know who the real shadow government in this country is? It's the bureaucracies who are stacked with left-wing supporters—and they are left-wing supporters—and the lack of accountability in these so-called independent bodies. I did a post this morning, about my tenth one on RBA, about how they refuse to bring our gold home. They refuse to do a proper audit. There's no accountability there. I'll give you another great example. The Bureau of Meteorology used to just have the weather—the vision. These guys would go out, they'd measure the temperature or they'd record the temperature, and that was it. End of story. But now they have this whole new division called the climate division. Their job is to go and create new sets of data that's been manipulated from the original raw data. They wrap big words around it, like 'homogenisation' et cetera, so that most people don't even understand what they're talking about, but it's actually manipulated data. You don't go back and create a new dataset, and fudge the data. You report the original data with a margin of error; that's what you should be doing. I've spoken to the ABC, another so-called independent body, about why, when they report this data, they don't distinguish between homogenised data and raw data. Why don't they report the raw data with a margin of error? That's how you do it. In the private sector, if you came up with three, four or five sets of different accounts—Al Capone style—you'd be thrown in jail, but, no, not within the bureaucracy, because it doesn't suit the narrative of the bureaucracy that maybe the temperature hasn't risen as much as they claim it has. It hasn't. The raw data doesn't show anywhere near the increase in temperature that the homogenised data does. That's just another example of the influence coming not from money or from the use of volunteer or paid power but from people who are paid by the taxpayer to deliver goods and services who aren't actually delivering goods and services at all. What they're doing is using the bureaucracy to push their own ideology, and that is corruption. That is corruption. Then we go again to the hypocrisy of this bill with superannuation. The first thing the Labor government did when they got in was to remove the disclosure laws around how much money superannuation funds donate to political parties, via the unions or whatever. Did the Greens vote for greater transparency there? No, I don't think they did. They didn't do that. What about the pharma industry? Big pharma—I'm not talking about pharmacies, by the way, Senator McGrath. I'm talking about big pharma. Did the Greens back our bill to get that contract disclosed? No, they didn't. If we go and look at who the Greens' all-time biggest donor is, it's none other than Graeme Wood, a guy that made his millions through travelling—from being basically an online booking agent for people to travel the world. How much CO2 does travelling the world actually consume? And they have the hide to come in here and cast slurs on our primary producers, our miners and our farmers, that somehow these guys are bad. But it's gross hypocrisy. If we look at the Victorian Greens party, their biggest donor was of course the Electrical Trades Union. They'd be making a lot of money out of wiring all of these solar panels, the wind turbines that we can't recycle and all the batteries that are going to be installed. Can you see the connection for the Electrical Trades Union, that's going to get paid a lot of money and a lot of jobs for the sparkies by setting up all this new electrical wiring? Think of all the transmission lines where they're going to be ripping the guts out and scarring our beautiful landscape. Think of the dead koalas from these transmission lines and the dead wombats from these EVs with greater braking speeds. Think of that! That's terrible. We have all those inner-city elites driving down from their North Shore suburbs or as they drive up to the snow every year from the inner city of Melbourne in their EV cars with 800-kilogram batteries in the middle of them which increase the braking speed. The hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking! That was another comment I heard, 'Accelerated depreciation is somehow a rort'. No! If you're going to drop a million dollars on a tractor—and it costs a lot of money to buy a tractor to go around and around—you won't sell that tractor again any time soon for anywhere near a million dollars. It costs a lot of money for big capital-intensive equipment, and to claim that getting a tax deduction for a genuine cost of doing business is somehow a rort is just absurd. It is just absurd! But, yet again, we have the Greens completely divorced from reality. They don't seem to understand that small businesses in this country don't necessarily have the time to go out and campaign. We saw that. The other great big hypocrisy in all this is with the teals, for example. Of course, their biggest funder is Simon Holmes a Court. He got his wealth from his father, Robert Homes a Court, who made lots of money in the eighties from investing in mining companies. We have this classic hypocrisy yet again: 'Don't worry about where my wealth came from. Once I've got my millions I'm then going to do the backflip and suddenly start being holier-than-thou to alleviate my guilt.' I know that Senator Pocock often talks about growing up on a farm and that he respects the farmers. I suggest, Senator Pocock, that if you want you could come out to our property one day and look at how far it takes to drive from our house out to our boundaries, and how much petrol we use each year. By the way, my dad never claimed the diesel fuel rebate. I used to tell him to do it, but he just won't take any sort of handout from the government. He just doesn't want anything to do with government—he doesn't want the government in his life. That's why he lives on a property of 150,000 acres, miles from anywhere. Obviously, I have inherited some of his traits because that's how I feel when it comes to government as well. Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes: I came to the Senate to get government out of my life! Thanks, very much, Senator Shoebridge. I enjoy your interjections, and you'll quickly learn that you won't get away with them with me because I will eviscerate you! My intelligence will put you back in your spot very, very quickly. Through the chair— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Rennick, just pause for a moment. Interjections are always disorderly. Could everybody just enjoy each other's company and enjoy Senator Rennick's speech in silence, please. Thank you, Senator Rennick. Senator RENNICK 283596 I look at these figures and I ask myself, 'Where will we end up? The other thing we haven't spoken about—and I must touch on this—is their influence on the childcare industry. I've often said that you only have to look at the union movement in this country, which is down to 10 per cent of the workers. The reason why the unions grasp onto our children in child care is that the only growing union in this country is the United Voice, because of the rapid increase in child care. These people say that they want to look after our children; I don't want the government looking after our children. I want that childcare payment going directly to the parent and letting the parent choose. Just like when it comes to the transgender stuff, let the parent decide. When it comes to our space in this country, the government doesn't invade our personal space and there's too much of that happening with big government. I've seen that since I've come down here, whether it's in child care or how we look after our health, you name it, or how we save our money; the unions, big government and the bureaucracy are the true shadow government of this country and they have no accountability. This is the hypocrisy of this bill. When we tried to move amendments to get greater transparency over costings on reaching the 43 per cent target by 2030—don't have a clue. Senator McAllister doesn't have a clue how many kilometres of transmission lines we need to reach that target by 2030. They don't have a clue how many batteries and how much energy needs to be stored, and they certainly have no idea about costings. We've done the same for the pharmaceutical contracts. I'm about to bring up another OPD on the Auditor-General. Another ex-Labor staffer didn't declare he was an ex-Labor staffer when he applied for a job. He seemed to think that was 30 or 40 years ago, so it didn't matter. Yet again, it matters because a leopard doesn't change its spots. If you want to get all this stuff and tamp down on donations, I think every bureaucrat in this country should be made to declare whom they vote for at every election, so we know whether or not they're impartial. They shouldn't be allowed to vote. That would be the best way. Once you become a bureaucrat, you've got to be completely impartial. Don't let them vote, or we can make them disclose which way they vote, so we know how they think. For too long these guys have been running a protection racket for the left side of politics. We had one public servant in estimates start saying, 'We're the government,' and Senator Hollie Hughes very quickly picked up on the fact that he should've actually been impartial. As I said, if you want to know who really controls this government, it's the bureaucrats, the unions, the super funds, the big end of town and the inner-city elites. It is not the battlers. They're out there. They're voiceless. Most of them are too busy working. Whether you like it or not in this country, politics is followed by only a very small sliver of people in this country, and most of the reason why is that they're too busy working. Some people, when they get later in life and they have a bit of money, might want to donate to the party, but this bill will destroy their right to participate in democracy, because they don't always have the time of young uni students. That's how Josh got rolled. Basically the teals got a couple of thousand people to go doorknocking and paid them $40. Is it going to apply to the teals, who pay their volunteers to go doorknocking? Is this bill going to apply to that? This says non-volunteer labour; how does it work out when the teals and the Greens pay their volunteers to go doorknocking? Senator Pratt I0T They're not volunteers. Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes, they're not volunteers. That's right. They should be called out as well. Are we going to make every little volunteer disclose how much they're getting paid? Are we going to do that? No, of course not. If we want to have true democracy in this country—and I'm all for disclosure, but this is one sided—next time I'll bring that big pharmaceutical bill up, Senator Waters, and see whether or not you want to vote on what we spent the $8 billion on with these vaccines, what we got for that and what was in that deal. You didn't do that, so I don't want to hear about how you're against the big end of town, because every time we try and wedge you guys on making the big end of town more transparent, you always vote with Labor. I'll be putting the bureaucrats up to ICAC. I'm going to have a lot of fun doing this, because Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, will shut that down. 10:08 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Turns out if you want to trigger Labor and the coalition, mention political donations. Out come the wacko conspiracy theories, out comes the love of corporate Australia and out comes one of the strangest arguments that I've heard in this debate. The argument from Labor is what's eroding trust in democracy isn't taking hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars of donations from the fossil fuel industry, the gambling industry, big pharma, defence and the finance industry—that's not what's eroding trust in politics; it's not taking the dirty money—but what's eroding trust in politics is telling the public about it and asking for change. That would have to be one of the most perverse arguments that I've heard against calling for donations reform, but it came from Labor today in this chamber. Then of course we have this wacko, weird conspiracy theory coming from the coalition, obviously triggering some deep emotional problem they have, if you ever suggest we should take them off the teat of corporate Australia. I commend Senator Waters for bringing this bill, and I commend former senator Rhiannon and so many others who have been campaigning for decades to clean up Australian politics. Do we need to do it? Of course we do. Right now there's a live discussion about the future of coal and gas. The Greens and millions of Australians are trying to keep it in the ground, and there are 114 live proposals for new or expanded coal or gas projects. Of those, at least 56 have made donations to the major parties—and that's just what is on the public record; it's likely to be much more. We are about to decide key questions on climate policy, and we know that coal and gas has bought their way into this place. In 2020-21 alone, more than $1.1 million of donations were made to Labor and the coalition by fossil fuel companies. Woodside dropped more than $100,000 to the government of the day. Do you reckon they have a seat at the table when we're talking about climate change? Of course they do, because they bought it. Corporations don't give money to politics because they love democracy. Corporations give money to politics because they want to buy outcomes. They want to buy approvals for their coal and gas projects. If we want to save democracy, if we seriously want to clean up this parliament, this bill is essential. I commend Senator Waters for bringing this bill. I am disturbed at the unhinged response we get from the major parties whenever we mention donations reform. I seek leave to continue my remarks. 10:11 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the minute and a half we have left, let me say, first of all, that this bill has very many positive aspects, but there will be industries that will get around this. There is one industry that the Greens have not represented on their list. Without doubt it's the worst industry for influence-pedalling. This is an industry that actually owns outright seven teal members of the parliament—six in the House of Representatives and one here in the Senate—all on a mission to drive as many sales for their sponsors as they can. The industry I am talking about, of course, is nature dependent power industry: unreliable, expensive solar and wind. The members of parliament I'm talking about are the teals. The very reason for the existence of the teals is to drive sales for companies associated with their financial sugar daddy at Climate 200. Simon Holmes a Court bought government in his first public foray into election funding. He bought his way in— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Roberts, you will be in continuation. The time for this debate has expired. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 11

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

In Committee 11 10:12 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The committee is considering amendments (1) to (68) on sheet PV124, moved by Senator Watt. 10:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Before I start this line of questioning, because it is going to be quite a technical line of questioning in relation to the better off overall test, I want to remind the chamber that the questions I asked last night and I am going to proceed to ask today are very deliberate questions. In particular they aim to enable us, to the extent possible, due to the significant uncertainty about how this legislation could be interpreted, to get clear and concise answers to provide guidance to those interpreting the government's legislative intent. For that reason, and just for the benefit of the Hansard record, I remind the chamber and the minister that the official records of parliamentary debates include questions in the Committee of the Whole stage. For the benefit of those in the gallery, that's exactly what we are doing now. We are in the Committee of the Whole stage, asking questions in relation to Labor's industrial relations legislation. They are a vital source of information when it comes to statutory interpretation. Minister, I now want to turn to a line of question in relation to the better off overall test. I will set the scene by referring to the comments of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in the second reading speech in the House of Representatives, on Thursday 27 October 2022. In relation to simplifying the better off overall test, the minister stated: We'll make the better off overall test simple, flexible and fair. There's consensus that approval requirements for enterprise agreements are onerous, complex and unnecessarily prescriptive. We'll make key changes to fix this. First, the concept of 'prospective award covered employees' is removed for enterprise agreements that are not greenfield. For the majority of proposed enterprise agreements, the test will be applied in relation to actual workers, and patterns and types of work that are reasonably foreseeable. The bill will restore the original intent of the test as a global, rather than line-by-line, comparison against the modern award. And, thirdly, if there is a common view that the employer and union have that the agreement passes the test, the commission will give primary consideration to that view. In particular, I go to these comments: First, the concept of 'prospective award covered employees' is removed for enterprise agreements that are not greenfield. For the majority of proposed enterprise agreements, the test will be applied in relation to actual workers, and patterns and types of work that are reasonably foreseeable. That was from the minister's statement in the House of Representatives on Thursday 27 October 2022 when he was referring to the bill that was tabled at the time. If one was to go to that, in terms of a matter of statutory interpretation, it would appear at this stage that the concept of 'prospective award covered employees' will be removed. If I then go to the regulation impact statement, in terms of the better off overall test, it states: As well as the concern over the genuine agreement requirements, employers have consistently raised issues about the application of the Better Off Overall Test … It goes through the Coles decision, and then it says: Employer groups are strongly of the view that the broader decline in enterprise agreement coverage across the labour market is, in part, referable to these changes in the application of the test and the uncertainty it has resulted in. There appeared to be consensus about the changes proposed by the government in relation to the better off overall test and, in particular, to quote the minister, 'the concept of the prospective award covered employees being removed et cetera'. In relation to the bill that was tabled, before the amendments last night were tabled, could I go through that with you now to understand, in particular, what happened in relation to the prospective employees and the hypothetical employees. What was the change originally intended to do? 10:18 Senator WA 245759 Queensland TT (—) (): Thank you, Senator Cash. It's good to be with you again on an important piece of legislation. In general terms, can I say that the government's motivation in reforming the better off overall test is that I think pretty much anyone involved in the workplace relations system in Australia at the moment accepts that it's not working as it was intended. What we're trying to do is remove uncertainty that currently attaches to the better off overall test, by allowing the Fair Work Commission to only consider patterns of work that are reasonably foreseeable, meaning the commission will no longer be able to consider unrealistic scenarios. Of course, there are Senate amendments that we put forward that will clarify that the Fair Work Commission must consider whether reasonably foreseeable employees would be better off overall. These changes will ensure that the better off overall test is simplified, while providing strong protections to ensure no worker is worse off. You will remember, Senator Cash, that at the jobs summit both employers and unions agreed that the better-off-overall test is not operating in the way it was intended. As I said, that's why we are making these changes. The amendments clarify that, when applying the better-off-overall test, the Fair Work Commission must undertake a global assessment. It must also consider the views of the parties and give primary consideration to any common view about whether the agreement passes the better-off-overall test as expressed by the employer and bargaining representatives that are employee organisations. In terms of our amendment that provides that the Fair Work Commission will consider reasonably foreseeable employees, I have already addressed that, but the Fair Work Commission would also have regard to patterns or kinds of work or types of employment only if they are reasonably foreseeable. A further government amendment would provide that, in making this assessment, the commission must have regard to the nature of the enterprise or enterprises to which the agreement relates. If a view is expressed by a reasonable employer, employee or bargaining representative as to whether a working arrangement is reasonably foreseeable, the Fair Work Commission must determine the matter. If the Fair Work Commission makes an amendment to an enterprise agreement to address a concern about meeting the better-off-overall test, the amendment must be necessary to address the concern and the Fair Work Commission must seek the views of the relevant parties. Additionally, the bill includes a reconsideration process to allow employees, employers or their representatives to seek a reassessment of the better-off-overall test where particular working arrangements were not considered by the Fair Work Commission when the BOOT was first applied, either because they weren't being engaged in or by omission. If the Fair Work Commission has a concern that an agreement doesn't pass the better-off-overall test as part of the reconsideration process, it must amend the agreement with retrospective effect if it considers it necessary to address the concern. However, penalty orders won't be available for any contraventions that arise only because of a retrospective variation. Hopefully, that clarifies the intent behind these amendments. 10:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could I ask what document you were quoting from so I can go get a copy of it? There are a number of issues that have been raised in relation to that response, and I would appreciate getting a copy of it so that I can then question you in relation to those issues. 10:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The comments I have just made have been provided to me as explanatory points, but I suspect that will you find that at least some of them, if not all of them, are covered in the supplementary explanatory memorandum as well. 10:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to focus on employers welcoming the changes to the BOOT and, in particular, the fact that, going forward under the original clause that was tabled, the better-off-overall test would not apply to the hypothetical or unlikely work. I will shortly take you through the Officeworks case study and the Prouds retail employees enterprise agreement because, as you know, they are not hypotheticals but actual cases that were decided. There appears now to be some inconsistency in what you have just advised the chamber of and the press release that was issued on 27 November 2022 by Adam Bandt on behalf of the Australian Greens. This has now caused, as you can understand, absolute confusion amongst employers and employees across Australia. On one hand, we had the government allegedly working with employers following the jobs and skills summit. There was an agreement that there needed to be changes to the BOOT within reason. Those changes were reflected in the first draft of the legislation that the minister tabled and spoke to, as I stated, on 27 October. On 27 November 2022, after the deal was done with Senator David Pocock on the amendments now before the chair, a press release was issued by the Australian Greens. I want to read this into the Hansard record because I then want to explore with you what the differences are between this press release and the statement that you have just given to the Australian Senate. It read: Greens Leader and Workplace Relations spokesperson, Adam Bandt MP and Greens Employment Spokesperson, Senator Barbara Pocock say the Greens have agreed to back the government's IR bill after securing significant additional improvements, including giving parents an enforceable right to request unpaid parental leave and protecting the existing Better Off Overall Test. The Greens have been locked in negotiations with the government on the bill for several months— very interesting— …the government has already included a number of long-standing Greens initiatives— and I'll get you to take me through them shortly. This is the paragraph of concern that has been brought to my attention, as I said, by multiple employers and employees: The government's original bill— the one that we've just been talking about— attempted to remove prospective workers from being considered under the Better Off Overall Test when agreements are approved, something the Greens were concerned could have led to prospective workers being worse off. The Greens have ensured that the test in the existing s193 will remain. Further, the bill will be amended to clarify that when applying the BOOT— this is the important bit— and considering potential work patterns of current or future employees, the FWC will still have to apply the existing tests and assess any work patterns the employer, union or employees consider foreseeable… This is where the concern has been raised. We have a statement by the minister in relation to the original bill. We have the explanation that you've just given to the Australian Senate. We have the amendments in front of us, and we will go through them in detail, but at the same time we have a statement from the Australian Greens that basically says all bets are off in relation to considering potential work patterns of current or future employees, and the Fair Work Commission will still have to apply the existing tests and assess any work patterns the employer, union or employees consider foreseeable. Seeing that was probably the biggest win that the employers have, I need to genuinely understand—again this is statutory interpretation. There is a press release here. It appears to not be consistent with what you've just said. Is the press release correct? It says: …the bill will be amended to clarify that when applying the BOOT and considering potential work patterns of current or future employees, the FWC will still have to apply the existing tests and assess any work patterns the employer, union or employees consider foreseeable… 10:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You would be drawing a long bow to argue that a press release issued by a non-government party would somehow be used by a future court to interpret the meaning of this legislation— An opposition senator interjecting— 10:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I know. I am not and no-one in the government is responsible for the words that are issued by a non-government party, whether it be the Greens or anyone else. How they want to characterise things is a matter for them. What I can tell you is—and this is from the supplementary explanatory memorandum, from paragraph 24 onwards, on page 5: New subsection 193A(6) provides that when applying the BOOT, the FWC may only have regard to patterns or kinds of work, or types of employment, if they are reasonably foreseeable at the test time. This amendment amends subsection 193A(6) to provide that in considering what is reasonably foreseeable, the FWC must have regard to the nature of the enterprise or enterprises to which the agreement relates. Then it, importantly, says at paragraph 27: The FWC must have regard to the reasonably foreseeable patterns or kinds of work, or types of employment, for both existing award covered employees and foreseeable employees… It does refer to the Coles case, which I assume is the same Coles case that you're referring to. So the Fair Work Commission would no longer be required to consider hypothetical working arrangements that are not reasonably foreseeable. 10:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just to ensure the record is correct, despite what you said, I was in no way was suggesting a Greens' press release would be utilised. I was though stating your statements in response would be. What I have just heard from you is, and with all due respect to Senator Barbara Pocock—and I am sure you will have an opportunity to respond, Senator Pocock—the statement in the press release issued by Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Australian Greens, is wrong, based on what you've just said. 10:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to sit here and assess, on a one to 10 point scale or by any other means, whether what the Greens say on any matter is correct. What I'm telling you is what the government's position is and what the law is. The core change we are making here is to require the Fair Work Commission to only have regard to patterns or kinds of work or types of employment that are reasonably foreseeable. The Senate amendments will not change this. In the Senate what we are seeking to do is simply to clarify that the Fair Work Commission must consider whether reasonably foreseeable employees would be better off overall after considering the views of the parties and the nature of the business. This capacity is relevant where there are no employees actually employed under a particular classification in an agreement at the time of approval but they are realistically likely to be in future. Any working arrangements considered by the Fair Work Commission, whether for current or future employees, must be reasonably foreseeable. It's a matter for the Greens what they want to say about this debate. I am not here to say whether they're right or wrong. That's for them to say. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Pocock, I'm going to call Senator Cash at the moment because she has a line of questioning. After Senator Cash, if there is a break I will come to you. 10:31 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I feel that certain statements have been made about the Greens, and I would like the opportunity to respond while they're before us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 It would probably assist the chamber if we could let Senator Cash finish the line of questioning in relation to those statements, then I will come to you so you can respond in full. I'll make sure that the following chair knows that too. 10:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to your political comment, Senator Watt, I would say that you have done a deal with the Australian Greens to get this legislation through. That is in the public. Therefore it is appropriate I ask questions in relation to the deal that has been done so we get an understanding as to the impact of the deal on the legislation. Given the press release and your statements, and given the concerns that have been raised by employers—as I said, there is the original draft; there is the agreement with employers in relation to the better off overall test changes; there are the statements made by Minister Burke in his second reading speech. Then jump forward to but a few days ago, and there is an announcement of a deal. Employers have expressed their disappointment. In particular, there didn't appear to be statements made by Mr Burke in relation to the deal struck that had been with the Australian Greens but for the press release issued by Mr Bandt. Based on the Greens' statement, the issue of prospective employees would remain. I'm still struggling to understand. You're saying they're wrong and you're right. If we could perhaps turn to two case studies, I think the case studies will take us through what actually will be in and out. The first case study is in relation to the 2019 Officeworks case. I know the department and the ministerial advisers will know the Officeworks case. The 2019 Officeworks enterprise agreement provides a compelling example of where process prevails over substance. After objections were lodged by one union, the Fair Work Commission asked Officeworks to provide undertakings of a cold work allowance and a liquor licence, despite the fact these have nothing to do with the Officeworks business. This is for an agreement which was voted on by more than 80 per cent of eligible employees, with 97 per cent voting in favour of the agreement. This is one example of what had become too common when seeking to have enterprise agreements approved. I think that would have been raised with you by employers, because the Officeworks case is one of the most famous cases when it comes to being asked to provide an undertaking about a cold work allowance and a liquor licence, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with your business, the fact it was voted on by more than 80 per cent of eligible employees, and of that 80 per cent 97 per cent voted in favour. Would the changes proposed by the government to the BOOT mean that the Fair Work Commission would now find this decision differently? 10:35 S 245759 Queensland enator WATT (—) (): Senator Cash, as we were discussing yesterday, I'm not going to categorically say what an independent Fair Work Commission will or will not find when a case is brought to it. But it is certainly the intention of the government to, if you like, fix the Officeworks-type situation. Again, I direct you to the supplementary explanatory memorandum, paragraph 28, which says: The FWC would no longer be required to consider hypothetical working arrangements that are not reasonably foreseeable, given the nature of the particular enterprise, and employers— This is the important part— would accordingly no longer need to provide undertakings in relation to such arrangements (as occurred, for example, with an undertaking about the holding of a liquor licence and work in a cool room, despite the enterprise not serving liquor or having a cool room— And there's a direct reference in the explanatory memorandum to the Officeworks decision. 10:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Well, thank you, and there is, and that is why I asked the question. Based on the new test that you are applying, and looking at the Officeworks enterprise agreement and the 2019 case, you've just said you can't rule it in or out, and that's the issue that I have. The explanatory memorandum looks like it rules it out. You're saying you can't, that it's at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. This is actually one that you own. It is in your own explanatory memorandum. On that basis, my understanding is that you would no longer need to give an undertaking in particular about, for example, the holding or a liquor licence and work in a cool room despite the enterprise not serving liquor or having a cool room. On that basis, we could all agree that the Officeworks case would be decided differently. 10:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think it would be reasonable to expect that it would be decided differently, because the explanatory memorandum says that the types of undertakings that were required in that decision would no longer be needed. I'm not going to predict what the Fair Work Commission will decide on any matter, but I think it is reasonable to expect that the Officeworks decision would be decided differently because of the clear wording of the explanatory memorandum. 10:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll go through another case study, and then I have a few questions on prospective employees, and then obviously I will cede the call to Senator Pocock for what time she needs. In relation to—and again, this is not a hypothetical; these are actual cases—the Prouds retail employees enterprise agreement, in May 2019, 86 per cent of voting employees voted to support the agreement, but the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA, argued that the agreement should deal with outlets that employ more than 15 employees per week, despite the fact that Prouds never employs more than 15 employees in any one of its stores on a regular basis. It took 16 long months from the date of lodgement with the Fair Work Commission to have that agreement finally approved. The issue the business had with that was that it took them away from creating jobs and left employees worse off while arguing about completely hypothetical situations. Again, similar to the Officeworks case, they had to provide undertakings to the commission in relation to a cold work allowance and a liquor licence, despite that having nothing to do with their business. We've now confirmed—Officeworks will be very happy to know—that that's been ruled out. That is very good. But this is now another agreement and it is in relation to very similar outlets that employ more than 15 employees per week despite the fact that Prouds never employs more than 15 employees in any one of its stores on a regular basis—16 months longer; at that time the business literally says it stopped them from creating jobs and left employees worse off. The whole point there was that they actually had to argue about completely hypothetical situations that did not exist. When we look at clause 28 on page 5 of the supplementary explanatory memorandum, again, does the Prouds retail case now fit within that? 10:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I'm not going to say what the Fair Work Commission will decide on a particular matter; that is always a decision for them. The entire point of this amendment is to eliminate hypothetical working arrangements that are not reasonably foreseeable. The entire point of this amendment is to speed up the process and avoid the sorts of protracted matters such as the one you're referring to. I don't think I can be any clearer than to say that, in any matter Fair Work Commission will consider, they won't be required to consider hypothetical working arrangements that are not reasonably foreseeable. 10:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I confirm, then: there is nothing stopping the Fair Work Commission from considering a prospective employee; is that correct? 10:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That is correct—if that prospective employee is a reasonably foreseeable one. It all hinges on that. 10:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This will be my final question if I can get an answer from you. In relation to the original bill that was tabled and the amendments I now have in front of me: I need you to take me to what are the key differences in terms of inserting back in 'reasonably foreseeable employee'. My understanding is that, under the bill that was tabled that the minister spoke to, the concept of 'prospective award', 'covered employees' and 'reasonably foreseeable employee' was removed. We're now adding that back in by way of section 524B, with section 12, and all the subsequent sections that add back in 'reasonably foreseeable employee'. I just want to make sure I've got the key differences absolutely certain. 10:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just to be clear: you're asking where the new references are to 'reasonably foreseeable employee' within the amendments? 10:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With the original bill, you took that out. You're now inserting it back in. I just need to understand: is that what's going to happen? 10:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, for the sake of completeness, I might take on notice and come back to you with each of the instances where there has been that change. I can point you to amendments 526C and 526D, and then there are the ones we've been talking about in relation to the better off overall test. I will come back to you on notice as to the complete list. 10:43 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Thanks, Minister, for your explanations there. Senator Cash has implied there's some kind of inappropriate or nefarious discussion or negotiation underway and that that's somehow illegitimate. I want to reassure people at home who are watching that, since coming here as a senator less than six months ago, I've seen nothing but discussion, compromise, negotiation and often improvement in things; there's nothing untoward about it. Anyone who wants to know what values or issues the Greens took into those discussions with the government can look on our website. There's nothing secret about what we did. Our vote increased at the last election because people want an end to things like pay secrecy. They want a group of senators in here who are making sure that those low-paid retail and hospitality workers don't fall through the bottom of the BOOT. I think it's very important we have been in discussions to improve the test, making sure those young employees who are very powerless are protected. Our sole focus has been on those protections in relation to the BOOT. We've sought to preserve the essential elements of the BOOT, so that new workers, or foreseeable working conditions, don't move workers backwards. I want to follow that statement with a question to the minister. You've clarified the questions of 'reasonably foreseeable circumstances' and the way in which the BOOT will operate to protect those low-income workers, many of whom are young. I wonder if you could say a little about the reconsideration process and how that will work to also make sure that those workers—young workers, low-paid workers—don't fall through. 10:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks for that, Senator Pocock. I don't know if I made this point earlier in responding to Senator Cash, but you're quite correct that the bill includes what's known as a reconsideration process to allow employees, employers or their representatives to seek a reassessment of the better off overall test, where particular arrangements were not considered by the Fair Work Commission when the better off overall test was first applied, either because they were not being engaged in or by omission. The fundamental point here, of course, is that the government does not want to see workers left worse off. If the Fair Work Commission has a concern that an agreement does not pass the better off overall test as part of the reconsideration process, it must amend the agreement with retrospective effect, if it considers it necessary to address the concern. However, penalty orders won't be available for any contraventions that only arise because of a retrospective variation. Really, the intention of the reconsideration process is to permit adjustments to the bargained outcome only to the extent necessary to address a concern about the better off overall test because of a working arrangement that was not initially considered. The intention is not to interfere with the working arrangements for employees who are not affected by the concerns or unnecessarily disrupt the operations of the enterprise. The Business Council and the ACTU both support a better off overall test reconsideration process for enterprise agreements. 10:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia At this stage, we will move on to another section of the act. I may have to come back to you in relation to further questions on the changes to the better off overall test. An issue came up at the committee hearing, but we didn't get very far with the department. It's about getting a better understanding from you on what the actual effect and the intention of this particular section of the bill are. Can you please advise what the changes are to section 186 of the bill? 10:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Section 186, which you refer to, falls within the part of the bill that deals with enterprise agreement approvals. Overall, what we're seeking to do is simplify the process and remove unnecessary complexity for workers and employers by simplifying the agreement preapproval requirements. As to why we're doing this, there's consensus that the preapproval requirements for enterprise agreements are onerous, complex and unnecessarily prescriptive. This can be a disincentive to bargain and can sometimes have significant consequences for employers and workers where an agreement was been reached but cannot be approved because of a procedural error during the course of the bargaining process. As to what the amendment involves and the proposal involves, it would replace certain preapproval requirements with a broad requirement that the agreement has been genuinely agreed to by relevant employees. A government amendment retains the existing requirement that employers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the terms of the agreement and the effect of the terms are explained to employees in an appropriate manner, taking into account their particular circumstances and needs. The Fair Work Commission must also be satisfied that the employees requested to approve the agreement by voting for it have a sufficient interest in the terms of the agreement and are sufficiently representative having regard to the employees the agreement is expressed to cover. The Fair Work Commission will issue a statement of principles on genuine agreement to provide guidance to employers on how to ensure an enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed to by employees. I suspect that might be something of interest to you and the people who've been in touch with you as to what genuine agreement amounts to, and that's something that the Fair Work Commission will issue a statement of principles on. That document, when it's issued, will play a significant role in ensuring the changes do not erode employee safeguards. A government amendment also provides that, before an employer requests employees approve a multi-enterprise agreement by voting for it, the employer must obtain written agreement to the making of the request from each bargaining representative for the agreement that is an employee organisation. The government wants to ensure that employers are not unreasonably prevented from putting agreements to a vote, and that's why a further proposed government amendment would permit the Fair Work Commission to order, on application by a bargaining representative, that an employer be permitted to put a multi-enterprise agreement to a vote where employee organisations' failure to provide their agreement is unreasonable in the circumstances. 10:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That was the global overview of section 186. Can I just now go to some of the specific amendments that are being made: 647 After subsection 186(2) Insert: (2AA) In applying paragraph 186(2)(b), the FWC must disregard anything done, and the effect of anything done, by a person other than one of the employers who bargained for the agreement, that is authorised by or under this Act (including protected industrial action). What is the effect of this new section? 10:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Putting it simply, Senator Cash, what this is seeking to do is make clear that what would represent genuine agreement needs to be based on the content of the agreement, rather than necessarily the process of getting there. For instance, if a majority vote of employees at a workplace resulted in the employer being brought to a multiemployer agreement, that would not in itself demonstrate genuine agreement or opposition to that agreement from the employer. 10:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I then ask, in terms of the definition of coercion in section 186 of the act, what does that actually include? 10:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, I'm sure you'd be familiar that there's extensive case law on the meaning of 'coercion' as it relates, for instance, to the general protections provisions of the existing legislation. So our expectation would be that it would attract the same meaning in the context you're putting it forward. 10:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I then confirm that coercion does not include taking industrial action or threatening to take industrial action? And, again, with all due respect—and we went through it last night—whether or not I have any knowledge is actually irrelevant. I'm deliberately asking the questions for the benefit of the Hansard record. Senator Watt 245759 I'm not having a go. Senator CASH I0M No, thank you. Obviously, as I said, these are very genuine questions. This is a new section. There's a section in the act that says, currently, 'Approval of enterprise agreements' by the Fair Work Commission. Section 186, 'When the Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement—general requirement', sets out the basic rule. It then says currently under186(2): The FWC must be satisfied that: …   …   … (b) if the agreement is a multi-enterprise agreement: (i) the agreement has been genuinely agreed to by each employer covered by the agreement; and (ii) no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of the employers to make the agreement; and The point of the line of questioning is that, if I look at the amendment, the amendment says we're now swooping in above that and what we're now saying is that: if the agreement is a multi-enterprise agreement: no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of the employers to make the agreement … The bit I'm struggling with then is, you're now saying: Insert: (2AA) In applying paragraph 186(2)(b), the FWC must disregard anything done, and the effect of anything done, by a person other than one of the employers who bargained for the agreement … Again, what, in terms of the definition of coercion in section 186, does it not include taking industrial action or threatening to take industrial action? 10:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I say, I wasn't having a go, Senator Cash, in suggesting you might know that there's extensive case law. I was recognising your experience in this area. What I can also direct you to in the revised explanatory memorandum is in, I think, the next paragraph from the one you were reading from. So, paragraph 1119, about halfway down, it makes the point that 'protected industrial action taken by the employers/employees during bargaining for the agreement would not amount to coercion. The employer, having requested its employees to vote to approve the agreement, could be taken into consideration as could any unprotected industrial action taken by the employees.' 10:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So proposing to take industrial action, which would financially cripple a small or family business or a business over, say, 21, in order to get an employer to sign an enterprise agreement—is that permitted? 10:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, my limited recollection of the case law on coercion is that simply proposing to take protected industrial action does not amount to coercion. I mean, whether we're talking about employers or employees, given that the current legislation that your government presided over allowed for protected and industrial action to occur, albeit with significant constraints around it, the mere fact that that is provided for in the legislation would suggest pretty strongly to me that that does not amount to coercion. What the explanatory memorandum is trying to say is that coercion could, for example, be unprotected industrial action, unlawful intimidation or threats. I've been reminded that the leading case on the meaning of coercion in this context is the Esso decision, and that found, essentially, that coercion needs to involve negation of choice and the use of unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable means. 10:59 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm disappointed, Senator Watt, that you had to refer back to the act you presided under. Just so you're completely aware, whenever you say that you don't insult me, but you do insult former Prime Minister Gillard and former Prime Minister Rudd, because it is your regime. No-one here is insulted by the comments that you are making. We didn't have the numbers in the previous Senate. We relied on you. You opposed everything, including our changes to the BOOT. Every time you want to say that going forward, please note that none of us are insulted, but I'm quite sure that in insulting Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard, given it is Labor's Fair Work Act, there will be many on your side who are disappointed. 11:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The fact that we are putting forward amendments to this legislation indicates that the Albanese Labor government does think that the Fair Work Act needs improvement. Yes, the Fair Work Act was introduced by the Rudd-Gillard governments. As time goes on it needs improvement, just like every piece of legislation. The point I'm making is that over the course of this debate, both last night and today, you have suggested that there are things in the amendments that we're putting forward that are wrong or immoral or will do this or that, when in many cases they are picking up concepts that were contained in the legislation that existed when you were the minister. You did attempt to make amendments to the Act while were you the minister, many of which would have actually made workers' position worse off. I am very proud of the fact that we resisted those. Now that we're in government we're about trying to improve this act from where it began under the Rudd-Gillard governments, from where it was under your government, to where it needs to be to make sure that workers in this country get a decent pay rise and we can lift productivity in businesses as well. 11:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could I just go back to clarify again for the Hansard record: proposing to take industrial action, which would financially cripple a smaller family business or a smaller business, in order to get an employer to sign an enterprise agreement, based in particular on the case law that you have referred to, is permitted? 11:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I repeat that, in the example you're giving, proposing to take protected industrial action, which is a legal right that employers and employees have, does not amount to the negation of choice and the use of unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable means. Similarly, just as you give an example of employees proposing to take protected action, if an employer was to propose to lock out its employees in line with the law, that would not be coercion because it's not unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable. What would be unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable, and therefore could amount to coercion, is unprotected industrial action, unlawful intimidation or threats. 11:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I go to the effect of the amendment itself. Is it then to actually make explicitly clear, given the wording of amendment, the Fair Work Commission must disregard anything done and the effect of anything done by a person other than one of the employers who bargained for the agreement? The effect is to make it explicitly clear that anything done by an employee or their union under the umbrella of industrial action is permitted when negotiating an agreement? 11:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That provision is really just for the avoidance of doubt. All of the existing powers of the commission in relation to protected action, for example, by employees or employers would remain on foot for the purposes of this section, as with every other section. 11:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is the whole point which employers have raised with me. What was the rationale behind including the section, given what you have just said, other than the government effectively telling Australians that to get what you want in the workplace, all you need to do is threaten industrial action, and that is the whole point? What is the rationale behind adding or inserting section 2AA? Why the difference between what unions do and what employers do? I don't see any need for this particular section other than you do want to make it clear that anything done by an employee or their union in undertaking the application of section 186(2)(b), the Fair Work Commission does not need to take into consideration, unless it is one of the employers who bargained for the agreement. You have confirmed, therefore, that proposing or threatening to take industrial action that would financially cripple a small or family business or a smaller business to force them to sign the agreement is actually not coercion and therefore allowed. 11:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There is a very good reason section 186(2AA) refers to employers, and that's because it relates to the existing section 186(2)(b). That existing provision provides that in order to approve a multi-enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that: (i) the agreement has been genuinely agreed to by each employer covered by the agreement; and (ii) no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of the employers to make the agreement … Given that the focus of 186(2)(b) in the existing legislation is on the behaviour or mind of employers, that's why section 186(2AA) also deals with employers. There is no reference in the current section 186(2)(b) to employees or to unions; it's focused on employers. That's why 186(2AA) also refers to employers. If, as I think you're suggesting, this new provision were to also refer to employees, it would be completely meaningless, because it connects back to 186(2)(b), which is all about employers. 11:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I go to the amendment: 647 After subsection 186(2) Insert: (2A) If the agreement is a cooperative workplace agreement that is not a greenfields agreement, the FWC must be satisfied that at least some of the employees covered by the agreement were represented by an employee organisation in relation to bargaining for the agreement. One of the issues that has been raised with me time and time again in relation to this particular amendment is that it says the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that 'at least some of the employees' are represented by a union. How many does this mean? Senator Watt 245759 The question is how many? Senator CASH I0M After subsection 186(2), you are also inserting: (2A) If the agreement is … the FWC must be satisfied that at least some of the employees covered by the agreement were represented by an employee organisation in relation to bargaining for the agreement. The question is an obvious question that has come from far and wide. It literally becomes 'must be satisfied that at least some of the employees'. What does that mean, literally? 11:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As was the case last night, we are trying to get into strictly defining terms that have ordinary meanings in the law. The word 'some', as in 'some employees', would be considered under its usual meaning. I think it would be fair to assume that we're talking about more than one, because, if we were talking about one, the word 'one' would be used. So I think it would be fair to assume that we're talking about more than one, but, of course, the word 'some' has a usual meaning that would be applied by the commission. 11:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. That's exactly where I wanted to get to: what is the minimum number? For very obvious reasons, when an employer or employee reads this, there is no explanation anywhere in the bill. You say that the word 'some' has its usual legal meaning. That's great, but they don't have a time to grab a book and look up the usual legal meaning in Australia of 'some'. I want to confirm because of statutory interpretation. This is very important and has been raised with me across the board. More than some means more than one? This is the exact point that employers have been raising with me. Whilst there is no minimum number, you are saying one employee alone will not suffice, based on the usual legal meaning of the word 'some' for the employees covered? That's the exact issue that's been raised. Would it require more than one? 11:11 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): I'm not sure that I talked about the usual legal meaning of 'some'. What I'm talking about is the usual meaning of 'some'. People use that word every day in Australian life, and I think they know that 'some' is more than 'one'. But let's remember that what we're talking about here is cooperative workplace agreements. There are obviously a range of different streams of agreements being provided for by this legislation. What we're talking about here is the cooperative workplace agreement where there is agreement between an employer and a union that a particular workplace should have its terms and conditions governed by a cooperative agreement, so the entire basis of this stream of bargaining is that there is agreement between an employer and a union in which there are at least some of the employees. Really the point of it to say that not every employee at that business needs to be represented by a union but at least some of them are. 11:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I do appreciate that guidance because that was literally the issue that was being raised—whether 'some' did equate to 'one'. It will give people satisfaction that, based on that answer, 'some' does not equate to 'one'. That actually does clear that up. It could be two, but it is not one. One of the issues that has been raised both at Senate estimates and in relation to the inquiry—as you are aware, we just have not had that opportunity to properly go through any of this—is in relation to the powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman or, should I say, the current powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission under the relevant act that transfer over to the Fair Work Ombudsman. I want to now take you through—and it's going to take some time—each power, because we received something back from the department that had words to the effect of minimal difference, or no substantive difference. So, we'll be going through all that as well. But perhaps, in the first instance, I could turn to some basic questions. Senator Lambie, in a question on notice, asked: 'I just have one follow-up question, because we're on the ABCC, and it has a tremendous amount of powers. What's the difference between their powers and what's been passed over to the Ombudsman and Fair Work? What's the difference?' Ms Sheehan replied, 'We took a question on notice at estimates to put it in a simple table form', and then we have the simple table form. I've now gone through the simple table form and, as I said, it will take us some time, because we're actually going to—and I'm saying this to give a heads-up to the department that somebody probably with knowledge of the transfer of powers may well be required. In the first instance, can I confirm that, in relation to the transfer of some of the powers of the ABCC to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work Ombudsman will not have the ability to make submissions in Fair Work Commission proceedings? 11:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's correct, but the minister does. 11:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia But the Fair Work Ombudsman does not, unlike the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which did? 11:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland There's nothing stopping the Fair Work Commission from asking for that. 11:17 S I0M Western Australia enator CASH (—) (): Again, though, I really want to be specific in relation to the actual transfer of the powers. The Fair Work Ombudsman themselves, unlike the Australian Building and Construction Commission, do not have the ability on their own volition to make a submission in Fair Work Commission proceedings. They may well be asked, but they also may not be asked. So, of their own volition they won't have that ability? 11:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland A limited ability for stand down and right-of-entry provisions. 11:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You say 'a limited ability' in relation to, you said, 'stand down and right of entry', and we're about to go through some right-of-entry cases. I need you now to explain what you mean by 'limited ability'. And can you take me to where that transfer of power is? 11:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that we're talking about existing powers that the Fair Work Ombudsman has. 11:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that clarification. There is no transfer. Can I confirm that you are merely referring to a power that currently exists in relation to what was under the BCIIP act that does not transfer? 11:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Correct. 11:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Then, in relation to the stand down and right of entry that you stated under the current powers, the Fair Work Ombudsman has a 'limited ability'. How is a 'limited ability" defined? 11:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We believe that the Fair Work Ombudsman is well resourced and has the ability to regulate laws. We've provided them with $70 million over the next four years. These resources will ensure there's no shortfall in workplace relations regulation within the industry after the ABCC has been abolished. The ABCC's legal cases will be transferred to the Fair Work Ombudsman for them to manage independent of government. 11:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, I don't know what question you answered—maybe the shaman was talking to you. I genuinely did not ask that question. The question I asked was about you saying 'limited ability'. There is a current power for the Fair Work Ombudsman, according to your evidence, where they have a 'limited ability' to intervene in relation to stand down and right-of-entry. I have asked you to show me where the current power is and tell me what you define by 'limited ability'? 11:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland In any proceedings, the Fair Work Ombudsman can tell the Fair Work Commission it has relevant evidence and can put that evidence or intervene in proceedings. The Fair Work Commission has broad power to grant such requests. 11:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm that unlawful picketing in section 47 is definitely not in the Fair Work Act? Would the Fair Work Ombudsman have the ability to intervene in relation to unlawful picketing proceedings? 11:21 Senator CHIS 39801 Queensland HOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): No, but they can be dealt with under a range of other regulations. 11:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Excellent. So now take me through the other range of regulations. 11:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Unlawful picketing provisions could also be a breach of the industrial action provisions of the Fair Work Act; secondary boycott provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010; and, obviously, of state and territory criminal laws—for example, the offence of obstruction of people or traffic in a public space. The common law as well—for example, the torts, and trespass and nuisance. 11:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Cash. Can I confirm then: is the Fair Work Ombudsman required to intervene in Fair Work Commission matters or is it discretionary? 11:23 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Discretionary. 11:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll go back to the ability of the Fair Work Commission to intervene, where we now understand that there's a difference and the powers of the ABCC do not transfer over to the Fair Work Ombudsman in this regard. You have stated that you believe the Fair Work Ombudsman does have a limited ability to intervene in relation to stand down and right-of-entry matters, but what we have also determined is that the Fair Work Ombudsman is not required to intervene in Fair Work Commission matters, that it is merely a discretion that the Fair Work Ombudsman has—depending on their workload, to be fair. We've heard a lot about the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. To be fair to the Fair Work Ombudsman, they may say, 'There's too much going on, we will not intervene.' Based on your last answer, on unlawful picketing, can you take me to exactly where in the Fair Work Act unlawful picketing itself is? What section? 11:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We'll take the specific references on notice and come back to you. 11:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is absolutely an unacceptable answer. You are abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. You have key figures from the department here who have provided a table. It is a very, very simple question, and I would ask—don't take it on notice; we are going to be here until two o'clock—with all due respect that you find me the section in the Fair Work Act please that directly refers to unlawful picketing. It is my understanding that the Fair Work Ombudsman will not have the actual ability—and we've actually determined they don't—to intervene in such cases, for example, stopping union officials such as Luke Collier from holding a right of entry permit. In September 2022, only after the ABCC Commissioner intervened, Dean Riley was denied to renew his federal entry permit. For the benefit of those listening in, Dean Riley is a man who used homophobic slurs against a safety inspector. Again, can I confirm there is no obligation on the Fair Work Ombudsman, unlike on the Australian Building and Construction Commission Commissioner, to intervene? 11:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Under section 507 on right of entry, the Fair Work Ombudsman inspector may bring proceedings against a permit holder, so it's discretionary. 11:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. It is discretionary, so they do not have to. In September 2021, only again after intervention of the Australian Building and Construction Commission Commissioner, CFMMEU Queensland state secretary Michael Ravbar abandoned his application to renew his right of entry. Under Mr Ravbar's watch, the Queensland division and its officials have contravened industrial law on 175 occasions in 28 separate proceedings. Again, can I confirm there is no obligation on the Fair Work Ombudsman to intervene? 11:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Fair Work Ombudsman operates as an independent regulator, so it would be same as the ABCC. It would be up to them. 11:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So the discretion is completely up to them. In May 2021, assistant secretary of the New South Wales branch of the CFMMEU Michael Greenfield only discontinued his application for a right of entry permit because of the submission of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. For the record, in the Botany Cranes case, Mr Greenfield was found to have said to the managing director, 'If I were you, I would effing sign it'—his threat—'What do you think will happen to you?' This was followed up the next day by, 'If you sign the EBA, we will leave your sites alone.' In a case like this, where there is clear coercion, as shown in a court of law, the Fair Work Ombudsman is not obliged to make a submission against the right of entry permit application; they merely have the discretion to, based on their workload? 11:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think it's a hypothetical question that you've put to me there, Senator Cash. What I have said, and I think it has been repeated here today by my colleague, Senator Watt, the Fair Work Ombudsman will be well resourced over the next four years. There's almost $70 million that we've put there. This includes an additional 80 staff. These resources will ensure there is no shortfall in workplace relations regulation within the industry after the ABCC has been abolished. 11:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How is it a hypothetical question to ask whether or not, under the abolition of the ABCC and the supposed transfer of powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work Ombudsman would have had an obligation to actually intervene? I am asking directly about a transfer of powers. How is that a hypothetical situation? 11:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Because the Fair Work Commission has broad powers to invite submissions or evidence in relation to proceedings. 11:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If there is no obligation, when would the Fair Work Ombudsman exercise their discretion? I know it is independent, but what is the government's expectations? 11:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We expect them to operate as the independent regulator. We've ensured that they are well resourced, so that would be a decision for them. 11:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With respect to employers in the building and construction industry, can you detail what powers are available to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to industrial action or effects thereof on a site and other related or unrelated sites if all subcontractors do not have a union endorsed enterprise bargaining agreement? 11:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's the Fair Work Commission that has those powers, and that hasn't changed. 11:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question was in relation to the Fair Work Ombudsman and what powers they have. Are you saying that they don't have any? 11:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's always been the Fair Work Commission that would have been responsible for that part of it, and that hasn't changed. 11:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With respect to employers in the building and construction industry, can the minister detail what powers are available to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to stoppage of work by a union because a subcontractor would not enter into a union endorsed enterprise bargaining agreement? 11:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland There are various areas of the Fair Work Act that would apply, and they would enforce them. 11:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to my first question and now my second question, the question, with respect to employers in the building and construction industry, can the minister detail what powers are available to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to industrial action or effects thereof on a site and other related or unrelated sites if all subcontractors did not have a union endorsed enterprise bargaining agreement—was this power available to the ABCC? 11:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland For unlawful industrial action, the Fair Work Commission can act in that regard. That was the same under your government, and that hasn't changed. 11:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That wasn't my question. My question was, was this power available to the Australian Building and Construction Commission? To preface that, I started at the beginning by saying that we had asked a number of questions in relation to the transfer of powers from the ABCC to the Fair Work Ombudsman. I'm not interested in what the Fair Work Commission can or can't do. That's the current rule; I understand. I'm talking about the fact that today or tomorrow morning we will formally abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They operate under a specific piece of legislation. I'm asking the questions very genuinely. As I said to Senator Watt last night and again this morning, these are important questions of statutory interpretation. So I'm only dealing with the powers the Australian Building and Construction Commission had, and whether or not they transfer over to the Fair Work Ombudsman. What other bodies may or may not be able to do is the current situation. My questions are in relation to the transfer of powers from the ABCC under the BCIIP Act to the Fair Work Ombudsman. 11:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We are confident that there will be no gaps and that those workplaces will be regulated appropriately. 11:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia 'We are confident there are no gaps' is going to come back to bite you, because we're about to work through 74 gaps. It's going to be a long afternoon. Again, I'm going to have to ask you—and, again, I have no problems with someone giving you the advice. You have said, 'We are confident there are no gaps.' I'm going to go back to the first one. With respect to employers within the building and construction industry, can the minister detail what powers were available—not the Fair Work Commission, not any other body—to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to industrial action or threats thereof on a site, and other unrelated or related sites, if all subcontractors did not have a union endorsed enterprise bargaining agreement and was this a power available to the ABCC? 11:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The powers under the Fair Work Act are what will apply. 11:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It's going to be a long afternoon if I have to keep asking the questions and we do not get the answers. Again, there is an entire industry watching these proceedings. They would genuinely like to know what exposure they have to the likes of John Setka, the most militant union in Australia, the construction division of the CFMMEU. This is genuine questioning. You're abolishing a body, and that's your decision—I accept it's an election commitment—but there is also a transfer of powers or not. You have said on the Hansard record, 'We are confident that there are no gaps'. To date we've discovered there are some gaps. Minister, with all due respect, answers such as, 'We are confident we've given them money'—that's not the line of questioning I'm going down. We are going to go through each power they had and whether or not it transferred over. I'm going to have to assume, if you cannot give me an answer—because you have got advisers there—it is going to be no. Then later today we're going to have to go through what you mean when you say you are confident that there are no gaps. With respect to employers within the building and construction industry, can you detail the powers that are specifically available—not to the Fair Work Commission—to the Fair Work Ombudsman, and take me to where they are, in relation to stoppage of work by a union because a subcontractor would not enter into a union endorsed EBA? 11:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Once again, it's the Fair Work Act that would apply. 11:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is unacceptable. We will need to take a break to get someone to come into this place—I don't care who it is—who is actually going to inform the Senate. You knew you were coming in here today. I'm quite sure the minister's office, the department and your office knew there would be a line of questioning in relation to the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Do you honestly think it is acceptable? There are people in the gallery here today who are witnessing a minister within the government either refusing or being unable to provide the Australian Senate answers to incredibly simple questions. You have said you are confident there are no gaps. I'm now exploring the statement that you have made to the building and construction industry across Australia. They employ in excess of 1.1 million employees. Over 400,000 small businesses rely on them. They contribute about nine per cent annually to Australia's GDP. You have no answers in relation to some of the most basic questions, which either the minister's office or the department should have anticipated. Again, it will be a very, very long three hours, because I will go through each one of them. As I said, what I'm reading out are powers that the ABCC had. I'm asking you—it's a simple yes or no—has this power transferred over to the Fair Work Ombudsman? The answer, 'It's in the Fair Work Act,' is not helping anybody, so we're going to go through this again. 11:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks for the lecture there, Senator Cash. We know your position on the ABCC, and as you pointed out today, you've acknowledged our position on the ABCC, which we took the election. I did actually have a look up at the gallery when you mentioned that. I do see some familiar faces up there, and I get a sense that a lot of them are here because they want to see this bill passed. We know that you've been opposed to this legislation from the beginning, as you are entitled to be, but stop the lectures. I'm answering your question, I'm happy to sit here for as long as you want and I'm providing the answers that are required. 11:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I want to proceed with the ABCC. Minister, you are actually from Queensland. You're a senator representing Queensland. There has been a 50 per cent spike in the number of new investigations launched into alleged wrongdoing in the building sector in Queensland, more than any other state or territory. The militant construction union, the CFMMEU, was hit with 88 per cent of the $3 million in fines for breaches of the Fair Work Act imposed by the soon-to-be-defunct Australian Building and Construction Commission. Of the $5.1 million in fines the ABCC imposed in Queensland since it was restarted in December 2016, $4.4 million—or 87 per cent of these—were against the CFMMEU or its officials. How is this behaviour going to be dealt with in the bill? 11:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. I think we've covered this substantially. We have resourced the Fair Work Ombudsman well. We've traversed this through questions this morning, and they are the ones that will be responsible for it. 11:42 Senator BFQ South Australia BARBARA POCOCK () (): We've heard a lot this morning and last night about fines, business, industrial action and how the sky is going to fall if this bill is passed. There are millions of workers out there whom we haven't heard anything about—the millions of women, for example, who are hoping for a pay rise, a narrowing of gender equity, an improvement in their circumstances and some flexibility, so they know what their rosters are tomorrow. Could you fill us in on how this bill will assist that group of workers, people for whom this bill holds great potential to improve their lives? I'm particularly interested in gender and women. 11:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator B Pocock, for your constructive work on this issue over a long period of time but particularly since you've been elected to the Senate. The government has made no secret of its desire to get wages moving. Where we see the most acute need is in feminised industries. Australian women are amongst the most educated in the OECD, yet the gender pay gap is currently 14.1 per cent, which means women earn $263.90 less than men per week on average. The total remuneration gender pay gap, based on the Workplace Gender Equality Agency data, is 22.8 per cent, meaning men earn almost $26,000 a year more than women. As you can see, there is a real urgency in how we address this and the need to address this. To promote gender equality and close the gender pay gap we need to change the law. That is the reality. In the design of these reforms we have deliberately focused on the needs of lower paid and feminised workforces, and we believe the bill we have put forward best deals with those issues. As Senator David Pocock has pointed out in this chamber, some of the very workers who put their health and safety on the line to guide us through the pandemic are struggling, particularly with the cost of living that people are confronting at the moment. That's workers in health care, aged care, disability support, early childhood education and care and other care in community sectors. Part of the discussion we had last night was about attracting worker to these industries as well, because they are areas where we are suffering from a significant labour shortage at the moment. Keeping those workers and attracting new workers to those industries are going to be much easier if they are better paid. Work in these industries is undervalued because of unfair and discriminatory assumptions about the value of the work and the skill required to do the job. The undervaluation is one of the biggest causes of the gender pay gap, and our reforms take a number of key steps to address it. Another key cause of the gender pay gap is that our laws are outdated and don't support workers with caring responsibilities well enough. We will take a number of historic steps to address these issues: (1) changing the objects of the Fair Work Act to include gender equality, (2) fixing gender pay equity and creating new expert panels, (3) fixing bargaining for low-paid feminised sectors through our new support stream, (4) banning pay secrecy, (5) stamping out sexual harassment and (6) providing greater access to flexible work. That's what the focus of this bill is. That's why it is important. That's why it's urgent that it be passed. That's why the government have made it a priority since we were elected. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Pocock, I've already indicated I'm going back to Senator Hanson; I note you want the call. Senator Hanson. 11:46 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Listening to the minister's response about wanting to get wages moving—everyone wants that. The fact is that this could have also been dealt with under the state and federal awards. You could actually move the wages there if you really wanted to. What Senator David Pocock has said really concerns me because, in a small crossbench meeting that he had with my adviser, with Malcolm Roberts and with some others on the crossbench, he admitted that this bill was being rushed through. He has said that publicly—that there hadn't been enough time for consultation to address it and that, to pull out these things to do with the ABCC and multi-enterprise bargaining, further consultation was to happen. It's quite interesting what he says. He talked about how the motion to extend the committee hearing date last week wasn't passed. It wasn't going to get passed in this chamber; it was blocked by Labor, and it was blocked by the Greens. You didn't want to extend the consultation time for the committee to actually hear more about the IR bill. So Senator Pocock's comments are very interesting. He said, after the motion was defeated and after it was clear the bill would be voted on this week, that he did the research. But we're only talking about last week to this week that he did the research. These are his words, not mine. Then he said: 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 … It's not just the ACT, but he admits that he wasn't really across it. When the ABCC came up in this chamber, we actually spent three months plus on it. We spoke to unions, we spoke to the government, we spoke to advisers, we spoke to businesses—everyone. It took us that long just to get our heads across the ABCC and the impact it has on the construction industry. You can't tell me that a rookie senator in this place, who's dealing with all the other legislation, has got his head around and knows what's happening in this industry. This has been pushed by Labor. I don't know what deals you've done with him, but there's no way in the wide world that he can actually be across this and know exactly what's going on. Not only that; you have Labor, and you have the Liberal-National coalition, but the fact is that we on the crossbench are not beholden to any of the political parties. We actually do represent the over 33 per cent of Australians who voted for us in this last election. To push this legislation through is disgusting; you have not really given big business the chance. I went to the hearing last week, and I asked some questions. I asked the Fair Work Commissioner, 'Have you ever run a business? Have you ever employed anyone?' They looked at me, stupid. Then they had to say, 'No, I've only been a public servant.' You have really only listened to them. I asked a question about the Public Service. I said, 'Do you realise that right across your own board and The Public Service you don't have enterprise bargaining, because if you work under the E4 or E5, for instance, in one government department, whether it be Defence or another government department, people are paid different wages. That's something I would like the minister to answer: does the bill deal with the Public Service? You're dealing with the private sector. You're telling the private sector what they should be doing. What have you got in the bill to cover the Public Service? 11:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. You covered a wide range of subjects there. Senator BK6 No, I asked you one question. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I understand that, and I will get an answer for that. In my experience with Senator David Pocock—I'm certainly not going to attack him, like you did—I found someone who is diligent, who is thorough, and who applies himself to the task. He obviously was engaged in discussion with the government and made the decision to support this legislation because he thinks that this is going to deliver for the Australian people, and it's also going to be the focus from our government of getting wages moving again. The bemusing thing for me is that I hear people say, 'We all want to get wages moving.' I'd be sceptical about the opposition doing that, given their record in government, but when we actually put something forward to do something about it, it's not the right thing. How do you think Australian workers are feeling about that now? For ten years, low wages were a deliberate design feature of the previous government. But, now that we have a government that wants to do something about it and has put forward legislation to do something about, people are saying, 'This isn't the right thing to do.' No-one has put forward any other alternative. This is what we put forward as the government. I've run through some of the reasons we think it will be successful, particularly targeting some of those lower-paid industries and feminised workforces, which we think are so important, and those people who are doing it tough. That's the legislation that we've put forward. In terms of the Public Service, the Fair Work Act covers the Public Service, as it does other workers in the country. 11:52 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I'm just another rookie in this place, but I want to point out that this bill relies on decades of research about problems for our industrial relations system that have been there for 30 or 40 years. Gender pay equity has sat flat for four decades. Job insecurity in this country is now at a level that makes us an absolute standout in the OECD. My question, once again, is about millions of people whose experience has not been talked about in this debate today: that's people who are casual, who are on limited term contracts and who have had no security about their work for years over their working lives. They suffer a pay penalty and have insecurity in their jobs. How will this bill help deal with that problem of the 21st century; not the old wars, the wars we're hearing about in other people's questions, but the reality of Australian labour now. How do we get more security there for those millions of workers. 11:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks Senator B Pocock for that contribution. You raise an important issue, and I acknowledge your long history in this area before you got to the chamber. Plenty of us come with experience from before we got here. I think Senator D Pocock would be in that space as well. It is an important issue, and the Albanese Labor government wants to close the loopholes that are undermining job security and wages. Too many Australians are stuck in insecure work, and that is dragging down wages. In my travels through regional Queensland, I see the prevalence of casual work or labour hire and the undermining of communities that that causes. People are waiting for a phone call to know whether they have work that day, which has a debilitating impact just on surviving. Can I get a home loan? People in the casualised workforce are treated differently. Once upon a time it was that people in those insecure jobs were students or people looking for some extra pocket money. But now, too often, it's people who are trying to support a family, to run a household, or to get ahead in life. When we think about that, it's the pressures of being part of a family. The rent doesn't operate on a casual basis. The mortgage doesn't operate on a casual basis. They're things that you are responsible for every week or month, depending on what your commitments are. People in insecure work can't take sick leave, can't get a loan, can't get ahead. And there are too many rorts and loopholes that the previous government allowed to flourish. Nearly 27 million employees, or 23.5 per cent of all employees, are casual. These are workers with no paid leave entitlements. Of the 1.3 million low-paid employees in 2021, nearly 60 per cent were employed on a casual basis and around 704,000 casual employees have had regular work with their employer. Nearly two-thirds of these have had regular work with their employer for more than 12 months. It shows you the way these people are being treated. So, it is something that is important. This bill will focus on improving job security and gender equality by including both concepts in the objects of the Fair Work Act. Part 4 would amend section 3 of division 2 of the Fair Work Act to introduce the promotion of job security and gender equality into the object of the Fair Work Act. In addition, part 4 would amend section 134 of the Fair Work Act to include the promotion of job security and gender equality in the modern awards objective. It would also amend section 284 to include the promotion of gender equality in the minimum wages objective. We are also making bargaining more accessible to those who've traditionally been shut out of the benefits of enterprise bargaining, including workers in low-paid and feminised sectors of the workforce, of which you're well aware. Job security is at the heart of the government's agenda, and this bill puts job security at the heart of the Fair Work Act by making job security an object of the Fair Work Act. This is more than just a symbolic change. It will now be a legislative expectation that the Fair Work Commission have regard to job security when performing relevant functions. We think that is a very important change for those impacted. 11:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm just amazed at what you say about the casualisation of jobs and that type of thing. Let me remind you that it was actually One Nation that pushed for people who are casual, if they've been with the business for 12 months or more, to then have the right to go to the employer and say, 'We want to be classified as full-time employment.' That was One Nation that did that. Aren't you aware of it, Minister? That was actually addressed, so that if people want to move casual to full-time employment they have every right to do it now. But a lot of people wish to stay as casuals because of the pay they're getting, the higher rate of pay that they have at the time. That was something that One Nation did. So, we do care about the workers out there. We do understand the stresses and strains they are going through. Minister, can you tell me what consultations you had with businesses to ask them whether they can actually afford to pay this, if they're a smaller business competing with a bigger enterprise organisation? What consultation was undertaken and what consideration was taken on whether they can afford the enterprise bargaining agreements that larger organisations have agreed to and that will flow on to them, because 'like minded'? What consultations have been undertaken? 11:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. A very thorough consultation process was undertaken before the introduction, meeting with key business peaks on multiple occasions as well as the ACTU and many business groups representing single interests, such as: Clubs Australia; the Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association; the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association; the manufacturing and insulation association; individual employers, such as Qantas DP World and Team Global Express, formally Toll; the National Women's Alliances, including representatives from Migrant Women in Business, Harmony Alliance, the National Rural Women's Coalition, Women with Disabilities Australia and YWCA Canberra; academics with a focus on workplace practices and law, including Professor Anthony Forsyth from RMIT and Professor Crystal from the University of Sydney; written submissions ahead of the Jobs and Skills Summit, including from peak business groups—34 were sought and 20 received; the Committee on Industrial Legislation, including business representatives from the peak body; the Business Council of Australia; the Housing Industry Association; the National Farmers Federation; the Master Builders, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, representing COSBOA; the Australian Industry Group; Australian Business Lawyers & Advisers; and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association was invited, but did not attend. From 10 to 14 October 2022, the department held 10 dedicated consultations, including with business peaks and employers—for example, Woolworths, academics, the ACTU, state and territory officials and the National Women's Alliances. In terms of consultation on government amendments: since the introduction on the 27th, the minister's office and the department had at least a dozen further meetings with employers and employee groups to discuss concerns, including with the Franchise Council of Australia, business peaks, BHP, Clubs Australia, Wesfarmers, Woolworths and Coles. Obviously, the Senate inquiry was held as well; it had five days of hearings. My understanding is that there was only a one-day hearing into the bill re-establishing the ABCC. 12:01 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It's wonderful that you've given me that list. Just listening it to it, there was Woolworths, Qantas and all these others. My question was, basically, that if something is at the smaller end, can they afford the enterprise-bargaining agreements of the larger businesses? It's just ridiculous to say that you've had all these meetings with these people when the question is, 'Have you actually consulted with these businesses and can they actually afford it?' If a small business is going to have to get legal advice, consultation and everything they have to go through then you're going to put an extra $14,000 cost on that small business to be able to deal with all this. So my question, again is—and I'll repeat it: have you had any feedback from businesses that are saying they're actually going to have trouble affording this? Will it affect their businesses? Has any business told you that this will impact on them and that it will possibly force them to shut down their business or take it overseas? 12:02 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Not to my knowledge, Senator Hanson. But I think that the focus and the important thing for smaller businesses to understand is that for cooperative work places, which is where we think small businesses would more than likely end up, it's entirely voluntary. It allows small businesses to opt in to an agreement without having to incur the costs of negotiating it. It gives them access to the benefits of bargaining for productivity, simplicity and flexibility that currently only bigger businesses can access. That is what we feel will be appropriate, and we think that would also be cost-effective at the same time. 12:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I have something else to ask. Did you actually take this into consideration: if you're going to increase wages—and that's what you want to do, to increase wages—there's also a plus-plus-plus on top of that. So it's not just wages; enterprise bargaining means that they could bargain for four days a week or they could bargain for extra holidays. This is all added cost to the employer. But if they actually do increase their wages, have you considered having negotiations or talks with the states? What this is going to do is put added cost onto businesses with payroll tax in the states. Have you taken this into consideration, and have you actually tried to negotiate with the states to look at the payroll tax? 12:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. The states and territories, as I mentioned when I went through the consultation list before, were consulted as part of the bill. 12:04 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Sorry, can you repeat that? I just didn't get a word of that. 12:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I just said that the states and territories were part of the list of consultation I ran through previously; I mentioned them as part of that process. 12:04 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland So the payroll tax, you understand, possibly could have an impact on businesses, because they're going to pay more in wages for the costs involved with all this. You could actually drive it up, and instead of putting more employees on, you're actually going to reduce the staffing levels. Has this been taken into consideration? That's what I want to ask—not about consultation. Was this taken into consideration in the bill that if you're going to drive up wages you're actually going to create unemployment, because businesses will not be able to afford the extra they're going to pay in payroll tax. Each state varies in the amount of payroll tax that businesses pay. 12:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I said, the states and territories were consulted. You would have to ask them their views on that issue. 12:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You haven't. It was not part of this; you're not interested; you're just passing the buck to the states. They deal with payroll tax. If you put out a bill like this, you have to take into consideration the impact it's going to have on businesses, whether they can afford it or not. I will tell you now, this is going to have an impact on businesses that will have to reduce their staff because they won't be able to afford the overheads and the costs. This is something I have been on about for years and years, about the unfair payroll tax which is destroying workers. They are not employing more staff because they can't afford it with that unfair tax. Tell me also, when an agreement is not reached, can protected industrial action commence? 12:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It would depend on what stream you're referring to. We've been talking about the cooperative stream, because we were discussing small business and that's where we think they would most likely end up. In the cooperative stream, the answer is no. 12:06 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland This bill goes across, and it says basically businesses who are similar in what they do—if you sell fish and chips, if you sell seafood. You haven't really clearly defined what the similarities are going to be. Does it mean that in producing, whether you're retail or whether you're a restaurant or a manufacturer, or whether you box in the same way, are you in the same shopping centre? You haven't defined what similar entities are. That's not in the bill. You have left it open-ended. Can you explain that part to me? Please define, so businesses out there know what enterprise bargaining agreement they're going to be tied up with another supposedly like-minded business. 12:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It depends on the stream. We were talking about the cooperative stream there, where there is no single interest test there in that space. In terms of other streams, there would be what we call the common interest test, which would be determined by the Fair Work Commission. 12:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The unidentifiable common interest test. You've left everyone out there wondering what the hell is going to happen here. What I see written over this bill is union, union, union. This is payback from the Labor Party to the unions for all the funding and all the money that they have given you. This is basically about giving the unions the right to walk into businesses and with enterprise bargaining say 'Sign up here'. I can see it now. They're going to walk into the business and say to the employee, 'Do you want higher wages?' Of course they will. Who is stupid enough to say 'No, we don't'? When they get the agreement, they all want higher wages. 'Listen, mate, you sign up to the unions and we're going to go and fight for you for higher wages.' That is written all over this bill. Union, union, union. I will tell you another thing. We've got a bill that you want to actually get through to this parliament. Where is Senator Pocock? I will tell him also. There are pages and pages of amendments. Even the government amendments are nine pages. You know what that tells me? If you were to go and buy a car and you had all these defects in the car, nine pages—and that's not just Labor; this is the Liberal Party, the Greens, David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie, all these amendments—'Listen, with this car, we're actually going to make changes here; these are the defects,' you know what it'd tell me? You're buying a frigging lemon. That's what it would tell me, and that's exactly what this bill tells me—that you have not researched it properly. You're rushing it through this parliament. You've got a rookie senator that you've talked into supporting this bill, and it's a real shame. You cannot guarantee the people out there that they are going to get a rise in wages. There is a lack of workers out there. I'll inform you what's going on. A lot of businesses are actually paying their workers above the award just to get good staff. They want to hold onto them, so they are paying a lot of them above the award and all the other agreements—plus, plus, plus—that they want. But I'll also tell you what you're going to tie up here, because I've been a small-business person most of my life. You're going to have enterprise bargaining right across the board with a lot of these workers as well, instead of a single enterprise agreement with the worker. A lot of the workers are no-hopers, the ones that do not do a decent day's work. If you've got one person who works their guts out and does a good job and the other ones beside them are on their phone all day and don't work, productivity is down the bloody drain. You're going to tie them up into getting the same pay, the same rights, the same everything. That is going to really upset the worker who does his job and takes pride in his work and productivity, and that's what's going to happen as well. This whole bill stinks. As I said, the Public Service hasn't even got its own act together. I say to you, clean up your own backyard before you start telling private enterprise how to run their businesses and whether they can afford it or not. You're going to drive a lot of these businesses into the ground who can't afford it, and you're pushing this onto them. You are actually going to create unemployment with this bill. It is ill thought out. It is not dealing with the real issues. There is not enough consultation. You're going to get rid of the ABCC because it suits the CFMMEU to get rid of it. They won't have to be answerable to anyone. They are nothing but thugs—not all; I'm talking about the officials—on these building sites that have destroyed small businesses. It has driven up the cost on these building sites by 30 per cent, and that's going to be the same effect again. Yet you think it's a good thing? On your promises, I'll tell you, you don't have a mandate. When only 32 or 33 per cent of Australians voted for Labor, you don't have a mandate at all—not at all. The system got you the seats in here that give you government. That's not a mandate to me. A mandate is 50.1 per cent of the vote. You didn't get that. I don't believe you're listening to the Australian people. 12:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't know where to start with Senator Hanson's contribution there. I could probably go for a while with a lecture on how democracy works. I don't think any government in Australia has got 50.1 per cent of the vote for a fair while, Senator Hanson. When I see this bill—I know you said you see unions—I see workers throughout it, because that is who we want to support. More importantly, I see a bill that is designed to ensure people do get that wage rise, and that is what we are absolutely dedicated to doing. That is the focus of what we want to achieve through this. Again, I mentioned earlier that everyone tries to claim they're for wage rises, but then they keep coming up with a thousand excuses why they don't support them. We are unashamedly in favour of them. I think one of the clearest memories for the Australian people during the election campaign was the now Prime Minister holding up a dollar, and that resonated with the Australian people. I have no doubt that there is support across the community. There is obviously the support in this chamber, and that's the way our democracy works, Senator Hanson. 12:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Before I go back to questions on the ABCC: Senator Hanson has raised questions in relation to the common-interest test in the single-interest stream. After the questions that were asked last night, Senator Sarah Henderson was actually approached by the Geelong Manufacturing Council. She has the media release; I could just refer you to the Geelong Manufacturing Council's media release of 23 November 2022. Minister, are you aware of a request by the Geelong Manufacturing Council to exclude the manufacturing sector from aspects of this bill, including the multi-employer bargaining provisions? 12:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'm not aware of that specific one you've talked about, but I am aware that other industries have put forward similar cases. 12:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia When you say 'other industries', for the Hansard record could you take us through what other industries have put forward the case that they should be excluded, given that there is a civil construction carve-out—and we will go through the reasons later as to why you determined that. What are the other industries? 12:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I am aware of mining. I will see if I have any further advice. 12:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just in terms of the Geelong Manufacturing Council: in their media release they raise a number of serious concerns, including in relation to: Provisions that undermine the system of enterprise bargaining and the comprehensive system of modern awards that have served manufacturing and employees well for decades; Provisions that risk unfairly subjecting broad sectors to centralised settings— Senator Hanson has just referred exactly to what their concerns are in that regard—a centralised setting of terms and conditions, a one-size-fits-all policy that doesn't fit all employers— reducing individual enterprise-level autonomy and competitiveness. Did the government give any consideration to excluding the manufacturing sector from the multi-employer provisions in the bill? 12:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No. 12:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With respect to the definition of 'common interest', they've given some very specific questions they would like an answer to. I will just run through them. Does the shoe manufacturing business EMU Australia, headquartered in Geelong, have a common interest with Boundary Bend Olives, a manufacturer of olive oil, based in North Geelong? The key words there are 'a common interest'. 12:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We believe in giving the Fair Work Commission a reasonable level of discretion on this. We've deliberately provided discretion to the commission to determine in any given set of circumstances where there is a clearly identifiable common interest between the employers, and whether or not the bargain is contrary to the public interest and whether or not the employers in question are reasonably comparable. 12:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So, again, you're not able to actually answer the specific question. We did go through this yesterday with Senator Watt. The answer, though, again, is: it is ultimately at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. Senator Sarah Henderson has just joined us in the chamber. Senator Henderson, just so, for your constituents, you understand what the answer is, the answer to the first question—does the shoe manufacturing business EMU Australia, headquartered in Geelong, have a common interest with Boundary Bend Olives, a manufacturer of olive oil based in North Geelong?—is: that is a decision at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. Senator Henderson ZN4 No certainty? Senator CASH I0M Yes—no certainty at all for them. Let's see if we can get some certainty for the next group of employers that have put forward this question: does the manufacturer Backwell IXL, based in South Geelong, which manufactures a range of products, including homewares and steel fabrication, and which employs around 60 people, have a common interest with the oil refinery Viva Energy, based in North Geelong, which employs about 700 people? 12:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Same answer as before. 12:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Henderson, could I just confirm for the Hansard record: there is no further guidance that can be provided to these employers who have come to you. The government doesn't have any further guidance in relation to what the common interest is, whether it is regulatory or, in this case, potentially geographic, as you're putting forward because they're in your electorate of Geelong— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Cash, I ask you to put your comments through the chair. Senator CASH I0M I'll put your comments through the chair. They unfortunately don't change. That is at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. Can I therefore go to this proposition that has been put forward to Senator Henderson. Does AKD softwoods, based in Colac, Australia's largest producer of softwood timber, with more than 1,000 employees, have a common interest with Bulla Dairy Foods, a large manufacturer of ice cream and other dairy products, also based in Colac? 12:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Same answer as previously. 12:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For the benefit of the Hansard record, because I don't want to verbal you, can I confirm that there is no further guidance that can be provided, that it is ultimately at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission to determine whether or not they have a common interest. 12:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We've already answered that question. 12:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I would just ask you to say yes. I don't want to verbal you when we go back to these people. That's why— Senator Henderson ZN4 On the specific. Senator CASH I0M On the specific cases—I don't want to verbal you. If the answer is yes, I will accept it's yes, but I don't want to verbal you. 12:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We've already answered that question. 12:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm going to have to take it that the answer is yes because that was the answer given yesterday, that there was no further guidance and it was at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. Can I now turn to the definition of geographical area. Is the shoe-manufacturing business—that was actually the same question. Senator Henderson ZN4 Yes, but just in the same geographic area. Senator CASH I0M This is the geographic area. Senator Henderson ZN4 Yes. Senator CASH I0M Is the shoe-manufacturing business EMU Australia, headquartered in central Geelong, in the same geographical area as Boundary Bend olives, a manufacturer of olive oil based in Geelong? So now we're looking at the geographical area. 12:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Same answer, again. 12:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It is left to the discretion of the Fair Work Commission, so there is no further guidance that can be given in relation to that particular example. Is the manufacturer Backwell IXL, based in south Geelong, which manufactures a range of products including homewares and steel fabrication and employs around 60 people, in the same geographical area as the oil refinery Viva Energy, based in north Geelong, which employs around 700 people? 12:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Same answer, again. 12:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, there is no further guidance that can be given. It is left to the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. In relation to the definition of, or further guidance even in relation to geographical area, is AKD softwoods, based in Forest Street, Colac, Australia's largest producer of softwood timber, with more than 1,000 employees, in the same geographical area as Bulla Dairy Foods, which is located in Connor Street, Colac, about three kilometres away. 12:23 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash—same answer, again. I was paying attention last night. You traversed a lot of these issues with Senator Watt, and I think it was a similar response at the time. 12:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct. I wanted to ensure that, overnight, you couldn't suddenly provide further detail or clarification in relation to some specific examples. That's fine. So we can now go back—we've been asked to put these questions—and say: 'There is no further detail. There is no further clarification. The answer is consistent: it remains at the discretion of the Fair Work Commission.' Just in terms of my questions to you that Senator Henderson had provided, I asked you: 'Had the government given consideration to excluding the manufacturing sector from the multi-employer provisions?' The answer to that question was no. Did the department provide any advice to the government about how this sector could be excluded or carved out? 12:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No. 12:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Did the department provide the government with any advice in relation to how the mining or the mining and resources sector could be carved out? 12:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that Senator Watt dealt with this issue last night, and I have nothing further to add to his explanation. 12:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I didn't ask Senator Watt a question in relation to what departmental advice was provided to the government about how these sectors could or could not be carved out. This is the first time I'm asking this particular question. So, Senator Watt did not give me an answer last night. You have now stated that you are aware that certain industries did make representations to government in relation to potential carve outs. You said you've got one for me—mining and resources. You said you're not aware of manufacturers putting any request in to government. You've said you'll go away on notice, and the good news is that we're open-ended tonight, so we'll be able to get that information if not shortly then after question time in relation to the other sectors that approached the government and asked for a carve out. This is information that you've given me that I'm now questioning you on. So, I ask again: did the department provide any advice to the government about how the mining or the mining and resources sector could be carved out or excluded from the single-interest multi-employer bargaining stream? 12:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland There was general consultation but no advice from the department, is my understanding. 12:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia But you are aware of representations made by the mining and resources industry in relation to—very similar to civil construction—how they could actually be excluded from multi-employer bargaining? 12:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think in my answer to Senator Hanson's question I talked through that—that industry was consulted. 12:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So, you are confirming that they made representations and that they should be—similarly to the civil construction industry that we discussed last night—excluded from multi-employer bargaining? I'm not verballing you; I just want to make sure I understand that you were aware of those representations. 12:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Correct. 12:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia There is a carve out for civil construction et cetera, and we did go through that last night and will explore that a bit more this afternoon. Can I confirm, then, that there is no carve out or exclusion for the mining and resources industry in terms of multi-employer bargaining? 12:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's correct. 12:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Given the front page of the Australian and in particular the concerns raised by Mike Henry in relation to BHP and given the concerns also raised by Rio Tinto—one's the west coast and one's the east coast, obviously—and given the evidence in relation to why there is a carve out for civil construction that was provided by Senator Watt last night, and it was because, without verballing, him, of the high use of agreements at an enterprise level that had been negotiated, I think Mike Henry might argue that within the mining and resources industry on the east coast and in particular for BHP there is a very high use of enterprise bargaining agreements. So, why did the government ignore the concerns of these industries? 12:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I believe Senator Watt dealt with this last night, and I have nothing further to add to his answers. 12:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Well, unless Senator Watt is talking to the shaman, he definitely had not seen, in questioning yesterday, the front page of the Australian. I accept that you take advice from shamans, spiritual healers, magicians, dog walkers and dog trainers regarding costings for your regulatory impact statement. But, again, I didn't put the front page of the Australian to Minister Watt last night, unless we were sitting at 1 am, which I don't believe we were. So, again, regarding the front page of the Australian, on the issues raised by Mike Henry on behalf of BHP, which have also been raised on behalf of Rio Tinto, the evidence that was given in relation to the rationale behind the government carving out the civil construction industry from multi-employer bargaining was that there is a high use of enterprise bargaining agreements. As I said, Mike Henry, on behalf of BHP, would argue there is a very high use of enterprise agreements in the mining and resources industry on the East coast. Why did the government ignore the concerns of those industries when it was prepared to carve out the civil construction industry? 12:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think Senator Watt traversed these subjects last night. With regard to the article in the Australian, BHP and Rio Tinto are entitled to their views. 12:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Just picking up on the issues with the manufacturing sector, if a Geelong manufacturer is compelled to bargain with Viva Energy, a large oil refinery in Geelong—I have been advised, a short time ago, by one employer that if it was required to match the same terms and conditions as those offered by Viva Energy, including up to two years severance pay, that would force this business to close. How can Geelong manufacturers be given certainty that they won't be placed in this situation and forced to close if required or compelled to bargain with the likes of Viva Energy in Geelong? 12:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland What you've put forward there is a hypothetical. 12:31 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria With respect, that's completely incorrect. I have just put to you a particular case. I have literally got off the phone from a Geelong manufacturer—the Chief Executive Officer and proprietor—who has said to me that if this business was required to bargain with Viva Energy and match the terms and conditions that are offered by Viva Energy to its employees, which include up to two years of severance pay, then that business will be forced to close because it cannot carry that level of contingent liability. Again, this is not a hypothetical. How will you give manufacturers in the Geelong region the certainty that they will not be placed in that situation, so that they can have certainty as to their future? 12:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think the key word in your question was 'if.' It obviously and clearly was a hypothetical situation that you were putting to me and that is my response. 12:32 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria That's a ridiculous answer, with respect. These laws are not in effect as yet, but if these laws are passed, as I assume they will be, and Geelong manufacturers are required and compelled under your laws—they are a manufacturer which employs more than 20 people. If they are required and compelled to bargain with Viva Energy—please provide this chamber with the advice as to how Geelong manufacturers can be given certainty that they won't be placed in this situation and be forced to close. The response that you gave before is totally inadequate and does not address my question. I would ask you to address my question. 12:33 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is a hypothetical proposition that you are putting to me. In terms of a single interest test, if an employer does not want to bargain for a single interest multi-enterprise agreement there are factors the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied of before granting an authorisation, such as the majority of employees must want to bargain; if the business is in a franchise, the business is reasonably comparable with other businesses to be covered by the agreement and the employers have clearly identifiable common interests; and it is not contrary to the public interest. Again, that's a level of information for you. But I won't answer the hypothetical situation that you're putting to me. 12:34 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria No, I'm not putting a hypothetical situation, Minister, and it seems to me that you are failing to address this question. These are real-life fears in the Geelong community about Geelong manufacturing. The former coalition government inherited a situation where, when we came into government in 2013, Ford had announced it was closing—on Labor's watch. We came into government in 2013 when Geelong was on its knees. Manufacturers had no confidence in the future. We worked extremely hard as a coalition to turn the economy around locally. Now we have a vibrant manufacturing sector, which is also working well together. Now, under these laws, your government is proposing to pit manufacturer against manufacturer, to create a war, an industrial war, in Geelong. We are one of the most successful manufacturing regions in the country. The fact that you, under your laws, cannot provide Geelong manufacturers—or, in fact, any manufacturer around this country— with any guidance is a disgrace. I am not posing hypothetical questions, and, with respect, your answer was pathetic. It shows how little this government cares about manufacturing. It is ridiculous that your government and you as the responsible minister, the acting minister, cannot tell Australians or AKD Softwoods—an incredible company based in Colac, supported heavily by the former coalition government, which has grown exponentially and is now the largest producer of softwood timber in this country, with more than 1,000 employees—if this business is in the same geographical area as Bulla Dairy Foods, which is located three kilometres away, in Connor Street, Colac? That is absurd. So I would invite you to provide manufacturers in Victoria, including in the Geelong region, with the certainty that they require so that they know that perhaps their futures are assured. Right now, in the offices of the Geelong Manufacturing Council and in the offices of every manufacturer in Geelong and across Victoria, and, frankly, across this nation, there is deep fear. So, again, I ask you to address the question. And, if the answer is, 'This is a matter for the Fair Work Commission,' then that's fine, but please address the question. 12:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I've already answered the question that was put. It doesn't take long for them to get back on the scare campaign, because that's all they've got. They've learned absolutely zero from the last election campaign. If Geelong was going so well, how'd you get voted out? What happened there? If Geelong was going so well, how did you get voted out? Clearly they were not happy with you and clearly the local workers weren't happy with you and clearly the local manufacturing workers weren't happy with you as well. The good news I have for manufacturing workers in Victoria, in Geelong and across the country is that they now have a federal government that is absolutely committed to working with them and rebuilding manufacturing in this country. That is what will be a focus. I have the assistant minister for manufacturing in the chamber as well, who is working very diligently with this. I saw that Minister Husic put forward the legislation yesterday implementing our election policies. I am absolutely confident that the manufacturing sector in Australia will be very, very well supported by this government. We have big plans that we took to the election and we intend to deliver on them. And I'm sure the manufacturers of Geelong will be very excited by that. 12:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We were previously talking about the carve-out of civil construction for multi-employer bargaining. You have indicated that you were aware that the mining and resources industry had provided representations to the government in relation to being carved out, you weren't aware if representations had been made by the manufacturing industry and you'd come back to me in relation to other industries. Again, as discussed with Senator Watt last night, the rationale for the carve-out of civil construction from multi-employer bargaining was the high proportion, percentage or number of single-enterprise agreements in the sector. Could I therefore ask that you bring back to the chamber the number of single-enterprise agreements in the construction, mining and resources, and manufacturing sectors so we can do that comparison to civil construction? 12:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We'll see what we can provide. 12:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So we probably won't get anything, I'm assuming, which is a great shame. But we can do the analysis afterwards. Senator Henderson was talking about numbers of employees in businesses. One of the amendments that was, I understand, negotiated with Senator Pocock—I think it was also the recommendation of the Labor members of the committee that looked into the bill—was increasing the employee headcount of businesses who will be excluded from multi-employer bargaining to 20. Can you confirm how the government came to this specific number? 12:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Obviously, we take Senate inquiries very seriously, and it was changed on the recommendation that they made. 12:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So can I confirm that this was not part of the deal done with Senator David Pocock; this was actually part of the recommendation of the Senate inquiry? 12:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's correct. 12:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Was any assessment, consideration or modelling undertaken—given all the concerns, when the legislation was initially tabled, in relation to the definition of 'small business' in this particular section—of increasing the headcount to, say, 25 employees, 50 employees or 100 employees? Did the government undertake any further work in that regard? 12:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Increasing it to 20 excludes 97.5 per cent of small business. 12:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Of small businesses? 12:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Of all businesses, sorry. 12:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, that wasn't my question. My question was: was any assessment, consideration or modelling undertaken—given, in particular, all of the concerns that were raised in relation to the definition of 'small business' in this section—of increasing the headcount to 25 employees, 50 employees or 100 employees, or 125, 150, 175 or 200? If the answer is none, I can accept the answer as being none. But was there any assessment, consideration or modelling undertaken? 12:43 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that in the Fair Work Act it's currently 15, and we based our decision to go to 20 on the recommendation from the Senate inquiry. That was the substance of our decision-making. 12:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, I don't want to verbal you for the Hansard record. So there was no assessment, consideration or modelling undertaken by the government in relation to increasing the headcount to, for example, 25, 50 or 100 employees et cetera; you accepted the recommendation of the committee? 12:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland There was some consultation with the department. But that was our decision-making process that I ran through before. 12:44 Senato I0M Western Australia r CASH (—) (): In relation to the consultation with the department, was any consideration given to, again, 25, 50, 75, 100 employees—any number above 20 employees? 12:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I would just refer to my earlier answer about the recommendation from the Senate inquiry. That was the basis of our decision on the 20. 12:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I said I had a very long line of questions in relation to the transfer of powers— The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Senator Cash, just before you continue: I notice Senator Barbara Pocock has left the room, but we had an agreement that when you went to a new line we would pass the call. When she does comes back in, I'm conscious that she has sought the call a couple of times. 12:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll just go back to the line of questioning in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Maybe it will assist the minister in answering the questions if I also then refer to the sections in the BCIIP Act which I'm referring to so that we can actually determine whether or not there is that transfer of powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman. This relates to sections 54 and 55 of the BCIIP Act. The ABCC would take action to seek injunction and to bring prosecution seeking penalties on behalf of an affected subcontractor. Can I just confirm, in relation to sections 54 and 55, that those actually transfer over to the Fair Work Ombudsman? 12:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. There is no transfer of powers. The powers already exist in the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Ombudsman is an independent and well-resourced regulator who we expect to do that job. The key relevant general protections in the Fair Work Act are part 3-1, division 4, about inclusive activities. Section 346 says: A person must not take adverse action against another person because the other person: …   …   … (c) does not engage, or has at any time not engaged or proposed to not engage, in industrial activity within the meaning of paragraphs 347(c) to (g). Section 347 says: A person engages in industrial activity if the person: …   …   … (e) complies with an unlawful request made by, or requirement of, an industrial association; or Section 348, about coercion, says: A person must not organise or take, or threaten to organise or take, any action against another person with intent to coerce the other person, or a third person, to engage in industrial activity. The penalty for that is 60 penalty units, and section 539 of the Fair Work Act can make application to enforce. 12:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Who actually brings the adverse action claim? 12:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It would be an employee, an employer or an employer organisation, the Fair Work Ombudsman or an inspector. 12:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I just want to confirm that. You're saying that the Fair Work Ombudsman can bring the adverse action claim? 12:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Correct, Senator Cash. 12:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With respect to employers within the building and construction industry, can I get you to detail what powers are available to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to union officials restricting or threatening to restrict a subcontractor's opportunity to obtain work if it did not sign up to a union endorsed EBA? And, in particular, the issue I want to home in on is what the difference is between the powers of the ABCC and the Fair Work Ombudsman. 12:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Those key relevant general protections that I outlined earlier are appropriate. 12:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It doesn't really answer the specific question, though. Sections 54 and 55 of the BCIIP Act—the ABCC will take action to seek an injunction and bring prosecutions seeking penalties on behalf of an affected contractor. The ABCC could also be required to ensure competition laws are upheld and would refer any related issues to the ACCC for investigation. The code required that employers maintain compliance with competition laws at all times, and non-observance is sanctionable. That was under the BCIIP Act. The act is being abolished. What is now the difference between what was under the BCIIP Act in terms of what I read out and what is now the power of the Fair Work Ombudsman? 12:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Fair Work Ombudsman can enforce any breach of the Fair Work Act. 12:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, though, we go back to: is it mandatory for the Fair Work Ombudsman to do this, or is it at the discretion of the Fair Work Ombudsman? 12:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is at the discretion, exactly the same as it was under the ABCC. 12:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia All of the questions are prefaced with 'with respect to employers within the building and construction industry'. Can you detail what powers were available to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to union officials pressuring head contractors to replace subcontractors on a site because they did not have a union endorsed EBA? Can the Fair Work Ombudsman represent employers? 12:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Previous answer, Senator Cash, but the Fair Work Ombudsman would enforce against any breach of the act by any person. 12:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can the Fair Work Ombudsman represent employers? 12:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland He represents himself, so he institutes proceedings. 12:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With respect, again, to employers within the building and construction industry, what powers are available to the Fair Work Ombudsman to take action in relation to the threat by union officials to prevent subcontractors with particular types of employment categories, such as casual employees, from working on a site? In particular, can you take me through the difference between the powers that the ABCC had to gather evidence and the powers that the Fair Work Ombudsman will have to gather evidence? 12:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Fair Work Ombudsman would treat them the same as any other industry. 12:53 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of the powers, is there a difference in the powers to gather evidence that the Fair Work Ombudsman has and the ABCC had? 12:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As you would be aware, we've long been of the view that the powers previously were excessive. We believe now there will be adequate powers under the legislation that we've had. We believe all workers should be treated fairly and evenly across the country. 12:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, that wasn't my question. I just need to understand what powers the ABCC currently has in relation to gathering evidence and the translation over. I accept the powers are less, but I do want to understand what the difference in the evidence-gathering powers is. 12:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Just to be clear, Senator Cash, there was no transfer of powers. What we're saying is the Fair Work Act has the necessary powers it needs to ensure that all workers are treated fairly but also that workplaces are regulated accordingly. 12:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm the statement that you had made? You had previously said you were confident that there was no gap or difference between the ABCC and the Fair Work Ombudsman and the powers that could be exercised. You have now gone to saying, if I understand you correctly, there is a difference, so they won't have the same powers and they'll have only the powers of the ABCC that the government believes are not excessive. I'm trying to explore. We were at the stage where you were confident there were no gaps, but now you're actually saying there are gaps. Can I get you to take me through, in particular in relation to gathering of evidence, what powers you believe are excessive, just so I can get a better understanding of that. 12:56 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. As you'd be well aware, the now government has been of the view for a long time that the ABCC is ineffective and was a waste of taxpayer money. It has been a disaster for productivity in the sector and did little to address exploitation of workers through wage theft and sham contracting, which has been allowed to run rife, with often devastating consequences. The government stands for safe, fair workplaces for all Australians. Under our government the Fair Work Ombudsman will enforce the Fair Work Act across all industries. Offensive behaviour has absolutely no role in our society. Criminal conduct on worksites is wrong, and the police should and will continue to take appropriate action where it concerns. The ABCC, I would point out, has never had a role in enforcing criminal laws. 12:57 Se I0M Western Australia nator CASH (—) (): Again, with all due respect—thank you for reading the talking points that we're provided, and I have no issue with talking points being provided by the advisers to you—that wasn't actually the question I asked. There is a difference in the powers that were able to be exercised under the BCIIP Act and the powers that the Fair Work Ombudsman is able to exercise, and I just need to understand what powers you believe are excessive. 12:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I've said, we believe that the provisions of the Fair Work Act are what will ensure that all workers are treated evenly across all sectors of the economy, and that is what we are supporting as part of this legislation today. 12:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, with all due respect—I know Senator Barbara Pocock has returned to the chamber, and we had agreed that we would cede time to Senator Barbara Pocock—I will come back to the question. The talking points don't answer the question. The question was specific. You've admitted that there are gaps, even though your evidence earlier this morning was that you were confident there were no gaps. I'm happy to accept the change in evidence. There are now gaps. I'm assuming that you're of the opinion it was merely the vibe of the ABCC that was excessive, but the issue does become that there is a difference. You've stated there is a difference. I am asking you what powers you thought were excessive. I'm happy for you to come back to that, because we had an agreement that I would cede time to Senator Barbara Pocock. 12:59 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I'm willing to wager that most Australians won't know what the ABCC is. But an issue which has had no discussion, in the seven or nine hours of questioning that we've had so far, is from two sections in the bill, in relation to sexual harassment. Now, 53 per cent of Australian women will experience sexual harassment in their lives and it's an issue that really does deserve some discussion. How will this bill deal with this epidemic of sexual harassment? More than half of us are going to have the experience, including many in this workplace, and a third of Australians—men and women—in the last five years have had harassment experiences. So can we please hear a little bit about something that actually matters to most Australians? 13:00 Senator C 39801 Queensland HISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): Senator B Pocock, I thank you for your interest in this area, and I acknowledge your longstanding history of working in this space as well. I think it is an important aspect of this legislation. Stamping out workplace sexual harassment is central to achieving safe, productive and gender-equitable workplaces. That is what the government is committed to. Under the previous government's laws there was no express prohibition on sexual harassment under the Fair Work Act and stop-sexual-harassment orders were only available to some workers. We will fix these issues. Firstly, we will broaden the scope of stop-sexual-harassment orders to make clear that the Fair Work Commission has the power to make orders preventing sexual harassment for all workers, including sole traders, employees of state governments, local government employees, workers in community organisations and workers in workplaces such as amateur sporting clubs. Examples of stop-sexual-harassment orders could include an order that individuals treat each other with respect or do not make contact with each other, or orders for companies to provide all staff with anti-sexual-harassment training or to arrange a health and safety inspector to attend meetings and parties. This is a key measure of how we can make workplaces safer. Secondly, we will add the new prohibition on sexual harassment and a complaints process which will allow all workers, including those sexually harassed in the past, to apply to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy. Workers will have access to conciliation and arbitration by consent. Thirdly, our new provisions are broader in scope than the previous government's laws applying to conduct that occurs in connection with work and are consistent with protections in the Sex Discrimination Act. This means that protections will clearly apply to workplace sexual harassment that occurs outside of working hours or in employer provided accommodation, and to prospective workers as well. These changes send a clear message that workplace sexual harassment will not be tolerated. Our changes will open a new pathway for people to get an outcome without having to go through the court system, which can be slow, costly and traumatic. That's a huge barrier for many workers, particularly those in lower-paid or insecure jobs. Our changes mean that every worker—whether they're a nurse in Tamworth, a plumber in Perth, or an office worker in Canberra—can ask the Fair Work Commission to deal quickly and effectively with their complaint of sexual harassment, whether the harassment occurred in the past, is ongoing or both. The new provisions also allow for the national workplace relations regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman, to investigate and assist with compliance. Importantly, these reforms fully implement recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, complementing the Attorney-General's reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act, which passed the parliament. The bill also strengthens the Fair Work Act's antidiscrimination protections to include gender identity, intersex status and breastfeeding, bringing it in line with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws. The government is serious about ensuring Australian workplaces are free from sexual harassment in all forms of discrimination, and if we successfully pass this bill I think it will send an important message to the Australian people as well. 13:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Turning to another section of the act—and we will come back to the ABCC—before we hit the hard marker of 2 pm, I want to ask some questions in relation to supported bargaining, or the supported bargaining stream. Can the minister confirm which industries the government intends will be eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream? I note, from the revised explanatory memorandum at page 168, reference is made to aged care, disability care and early childhood education. Is this an exhaustive list—in particular I am being asked by industries, 'Would we be an industry eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream?'—and are there any other industries that may fall under this stream? 13:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Sorry, did you mention a particular industry, Senator Cash? 13:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We're into the supported bargaining stream now. Can you confirm which industries the government intends will be eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream? Again, I was noting, in looking at the revised explanatory memorandum at page 168, reference is made to aged care, disability care and early childhood education. Is this an exhaustive list, and are there other industries that may fall under this stream? 13:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The focus of that stream is low-paid, feminised workers who are also government supported. It would be a matter for the Fair Work Commission. 13:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's what I want to work through. I'm just going to get page 168 of the revised explanatory memorandum. In the revised explanatory memorandum, you make the specific reference to aged care, disability care and early childhood education. But what you're saying is it's not an exhaustive list. I've got a number of industries coming to me and saying, 'Is this an exhaustive list?' It's not an exhaustive list. Can you give any further guidance than what you've just given to any other industries that may fall under this stream? 13:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That is the focus of that stream. We've included a ministerial declaration for supported bargaining. This arose out of consultations that have occurred in relation to the bill. The purpose of the new power to make a declaration is to provide a final safeguard to ensure the supported bargaining stream is used in order to get wages in low-paid sectors moving. It is intended to provide some security so that we do not see a repeat of what occurred under the existing low-paid stream, where there were only four applications and no agreement ever made in reliance on low-paid authorisation. 13:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I have a series of questions in relation to the ministerial power; I will take you through them. Could I just go back to 'it is eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream'. I have the paragraph in the explanatory memorandum: The supported bargaining stream is intended to assist those employees and employers who may have difficulty bargaining at the single-enterprise level. For example, those in low paid industries such as aged care, disability care, and early childhood education and care who may lack the necessary skills, resources and power to bargain effectively. The supported bargaining stream will also assist employees and employers who may face barriers to bargaining, such as employees with a disability and First Nations employees. I just want to confirm—I think you've actually given me the answer—that it is not an exhaustive list, that there are other industries that may fall under this stream and that there are ways—and we'll go through them—that those industries could be prescribed. 13:08 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes, that's correct. 13:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Is it the intention of the government to cover all industries where employees are paid just above the modern award minimum rates? 13:09 Senator CHISH 39801 Queensland OLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): That would be at the commission's discretion. 13:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia When an application for a supported bargaining authorisation is made, the Fair Work Commission must consider whether it's appropriate for the parties to bargain together. In doing so they must consider a number of factors. The factors are set out, including: … the prevailing pay and conditions in the relevant industry— and that's why I asked whether it is the intention of the government to cover all industries where employees are paid just above the modern award rates— whether the employers have clearly identifiable common interests— and we'll go through that shortly— and whether the number of bargaining representatives would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process. Can I just ask you to confirm what is actually meant by 'prevailing pay and conditions in the relevant industry'? How does the government intend for the Fair Work Commission itself to interpret this? 13:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'd refer to section 891 in the explanatory memorandum: The supported bargaining process would operate similarly to the existing low-paid bargaining process. When an application for a supported bargaining authorisation is made, the FWC must consider whether it is appropriate for the parties to bargain together. The FWC would consider the prevailing pay and conditions in the relevant industry, whether employers have clearly identifiable common interests, and whether the number of bargaining representatives would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process. The supported bargaining stream is intended to be easier to access than the existing low-paid bargaining stream. The revised criteria for making a supported bargaining authorisation is intended to address the limited take-up of the low-paid bargaining process. That refers to the process that exists currently. 13:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think we're going to be going around in circles like we were last night. In relation to my question of whether it is an exhaustive list, can I just confirm this again, so I'm not verballing you, for the Hansard record: are you saying that, unless the minister makes a declaration for another industry, the only industries that are eligible to access the supported bargaining stream are those listed in the explanatory memorandum? 13:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That would be up to the Fair Work Commission. 13:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I just want to explore that. I thought my question was quite obvious. I just want to confirm this with you. We have the explanatory memorandum. It makes reference to certain industries that we've referred to. We've then established—and we're going to pursue it shortly—that the minister is able to make a declaration for another industry to be eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream. All I'm asking is: is that the only avenue under which you can be declared eligible to participate—that is, via a ministerial declaration—or is there another avenue? We've talked about aged care, disability care and early childhood education and care. Is there another avenue through which you actually can participate in the supported bargaining stream? 13:13 Senator CHISH 39801 Queensland OLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): The Fair Work Commission could make a determination considering the criteria. 13:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. So there are two ways. There is a ministerial declaration here—as I said, we're going to go through the ministerial declaration shortly—or, alternatively, I'm assuming you would make an application to the commission, 'Are we able to participate in supported bargaining?' and the commission would then determine whether you are an industry that is eligible to participate, based on the factors it needs to consider? 13:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes, that is the case. 13:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I believe the answer to my question on what is meant by 'prevailing pay and conditions in the relevant industry'—given my previous question, 'Is it the intention of the government to cover all industries where employees are paid just above the modern award minimum rates?'—is that it is left to the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. Is the government giving any guidance to the commission, given that there are now two ways in which you can enter the supported bargaining stream and given that the minister is able to make a declaration—so you'd think the minister might have, in his own mind, an idea of what the guidance is—about 'prevailing pay and conditions in the relevant industry'? Or is it literally going to be left to the Fair Work Commission themselves to make the interpretation? 13:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. So, 984 of the explanatory memorandum sets out the conditions: When considering whether it is appropriate for the employer and employees to bargain together, the FWC would have regard to: the prevailing pay and conditions in the relevant industry—this is intended to include whether low rates of pay prevail in the industry, whether employees in the industry are paid at or close to relevant award rates, etc; whether the employers have clearly identifiable common interests … whether the likely number of bargaining representatives for the agreement would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process … any other matters the FWC considers appropriate—this may include considering the views of the bargaining representatives. 13:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Okay, so it's a non-exhaustive list with the catch-all 'any other matters that the Fair Work Commission itself may consider appropriate'. What is meant by 'whether the likely number of bargaining reps would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process'? Would it be the case that the Fair Work Commission could not approve an authorisation if it is unlikely that the number of parties involved—whether they're employer reps or union reps et cetera—would be able to reach agreement or otherwise act in an orderly way? 13:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that's already in the act. 13:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, I am going to have to get you to take me through what you mean by, 'That's already in the act.' What is meant by 'whether the likely number of bargaining reps would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process'? Can you just take me to where that explanation is in the Fair Work Act? 13:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. I'm at division 9, low-paid bargaining, 243(3)(b): the extent to which the likely number of bargaining representatives for the agreement would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process … That's what I was referring to. 13:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that confirmation. I'm just asking, though, what is meant by that? What's the guidance given in relation to that in terms of the change to the supported bargaining stream? Could you just confirm that an employer could be compelled to bargain for a supported bargaining agreement? 13:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That would be for the commission to decide whether it was appropriate. 13:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So if they decide that it is appropriate, the answer is, yes, they can be compelled to bargain? 13:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's the same way it works now. 13:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Would it be the case that some employers could be compelled to bargain for a supported bargaining stream agreement and a single-interest employer agreement? 13:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. My understanding is you can't do both at the same time. 13:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You can't do both at the same time, but when one finishes you could be compelled into the alternative, if that happened to be the case? I just want to confirm that, because this has been raised by a number of people. We are saying that we have an employer eligible for both the supported bargaining stream and the single-interest stream. We acknowledge they can be compelled into either. You are saying though that you absolutely cannot be compelled to bargain in the supported bargaining steam and in the single interest stream at the same time. As I said, this has been asked by so many employers and it would give them comfort to know that that is the case. I want to know, are we formally ruling it out? 13:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That is correct. 13:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I note that in deciding whether employers in this stream have clearly identifiable common interests, the Fair Work Commission must consider whether the employers are substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth, a state or a territory. Is the chamber to take this to mean that if the Fair Work Commission is unsure whether there is a clearly identifiable common interest between the employers, that if the employers are not substantially funded directly or indirectly by the government, the Fair Work Commission should err on the side of not granting the authorisation? 13:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland For the purpose of common interests: For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), examples of common interests that employers may have include the following… I think 'may' is the point I would make there. 13:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to go through that. 'May' being the operative word. My question was, is the chamber to take this to mean that if the Fair Work Commission is unsure there is a clearly identifiable common interest, so we don't know—so on that we're unable to determine whether or not there's a clearly identifiable common interest between the employers—and then the employers are not substantially funded directly or indirectly by the government, are you saying the Fair Work Commission should err on the side of not granting the authorisation? So we're not sure if there is a common interest. We do know that they are potentially not substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the government. Is the guidance then that you should err on the side of not granting the authorisation? And is it the intent of government that the supported bargaining stream focus on funded sectors? 13:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is focused on funded sectors but is not exclusive to funded sectors. 13:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's where I was getting to. There's a focus on funded sectors but it's not solely focused on funded sectors, which does mean that you can bring in other sectors that are not funded or substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the government. That's understood there. Is it the intent of the government that the supported bargaining stream focus on funded sectors? The answer is that's not the primary focus. I understand that. A focus on funded sectors, though, is consistent with references in the revised explanatory memorandum and the government's— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281603 Sorry, Senator Cash. Minister. 13:23 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Just to clarify, we said funded sectors are the focus. 13:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Funded sectors are the focus. Sorry. They are the focus—thank you for that correction—but not the sole focus, but not exclusive. Thank you. So other sectors could actually be brought in. The nexus to 'not substantially funded directly or indirectly by government' is not the ultimate determinant factor. It is merely a focus of the stream. 13:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Correct. 13:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to explore that. A focus on funded sectors is consistent with references in the revised explanatory memorandum and the government's own public statements about this stream being targeted at care sectors, is that correct? 13:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It would be correct to see that as the focus. 13:24 Senat I0M Western Australia or CASH (—) (): But not exclusive, which takes me to the next line of questioning, and this is what has been raised by many in industry. Given the answers to all the questions and in particular that there are changes that are happening to this particular stream, we can't give any further guidance other than what's already in the act in terms of the common interests. Ultimately, decisions are being left to the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. There is a focus on funded sectors, and we agree that's consistent with references in the revised explanatory memorandum and the government's own public statements about this stream being targeted at care sectors. We have established, though, that it's a focus and it's not exclusive. So, can you confirm that the supported bargaining stream is not directed at industries such as hospitality and retail? 13:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think I've outlined what the focus of the government is when it comes to this part of the bill. 13:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, I understand what the focus is, but in outlining what the focus is you've also put on the Hansard record—and, again, I commenced by saying that the answers given are utilised by way of statutory interpretation and there are possibly going to be a number of issues in relation to the interpretation of the changes to the supported bargaining stream—we've confirmed that yes, there is a focus on funded sectors and it's consistent with references in the revised explanatory memorandum and the government's own public statements about this stream. We have also, as we did last night, confirmed that we can't give any further guidance in relation to the common interest, and what is involved in the common interest. It's either there already in the Fair Work Act or it is being left to a decision of the Fair Work Commission. Unfortunately it's the words 'not exclusive' that are going to pose a huge problem. So, again, can the minister confirm that the supported bargaining stream is not directed at industries such as hospitality and retail? 13:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We don't think it's too far different from the current low-paid part of the Fair Work Act that applies in this space. 13:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, that is not an answer to the question. There are changes being made. It's not just a name change. Given that you don't think it's any different or very different, can you now take me through the changes that are being made in this legislation to the supported bargaining stream? 13:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The real focus of the changes is removing the red tape so that it can actually be used successfully. That was the failure of the previous government—that you had that part of the legislation in place but no-one was able to use it successfully. So, the focus, from our point of view, is removing that red tape to allow it to be used. And it's got a particular focus, from our point of view, on those feminised industries that a lot of us have talked about substantially last night and today and is a real focus of the bill. And we think that is required and will hopefully drive an improvement in wages. 13:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You say you've got a focus on removing the red tape. Again, I need you to take me through what the red tape is that you're referring to. 13:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think the key point of that would be removing the red tape that allows the commission to be more flexible and provide more discretion to the Fair Work Commission to determine what is appropriate. 13:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. And then I have a question as to whether the minister can confirm that the supported bargaining stream is not directed at industries such as hospitality and retail. You can't give that guidance because what we are actually saying is that it may well be, if certain factors are met, that the Fair Work Commission could make a determination that the hospitality and retail industries are actually eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream. 13:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's currently the case under your existing legislation now, that no-one has been able to access, and it will be the case in this. We've made clear our focus is on those care and community industries. We think they are the ones who will be able to use this, and we think it will be of most benefit to them. 13:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I appreciate it's answering the questions. Could I now refer to government amendment (40), which was moved last night. This amendment gives the minister power, by legislative amendment, to declare— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281603 Sorry, the minister on his feet, Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M They're changing over. Senator Ayres 16913 I might ask you to start again, Senator. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Proceed, Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M We're in the supported bargaining stream. We've just gone through a number of questions in relation to how you could potentially be deemed eligible to participate in the supported bargaining stream. One of the amendments that was moved last night was government amendment (40). The amendment gives the minister power, by legislative amendment, to declare an industry, occupation or sector eligible for the supported bargaining stream 'if the Minister is satisfied that doing so is consistent with the objects of this Division set out in section 241'. Could I just get you to confirm: what are the objects in section 241 of the act? 13:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The objects of the supported bargaining stream include assisting and encouraging employees and their employers who require support to bargain to make enterprise agreements that meet their needs and to address constraints on their ability to bargain. 13:31 Senator CA I0M Western Australia SH (—) (): So that is section 241 of the act? Can I just confirm that's what you're reading out—the objects of the division as set out in section 241? 13:32 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales You've asked a very straightforward question for my second question, but perhaps it's best to explain it this way. Where the objects currently say 'low-paid', they will now say 'supported', and provision (b) is deleted. 13:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Would you then agree that a key theme from the objects relates to supporting low-paid employees who otherwise lack the experience, skills and resources to bargain at the enterprise level with their employer? Senator Ayres 16913 Yes. Senator CASH I0M In deciding whether to declare an industry, occupation or sector eligible for the supported bargaining stream or for supported bargaining, would the minister be required to consider whether the employees in question have previously had success in enterprise bargaining? If there is already an enterprise agreement in place for the relevant employees or for employees within the same industry, occupation or sector, would this mean that the minister is less likely to make the declaration? 13:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The minister would have to have regard to the objects of the act and the objects of that section. 13:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I also confirm: will the legislative instrument referred to in amendment (40) be a disallowable instrument? Senator Ayres 16913 Yes. Senator CASH I0M It's very straightforward with you; I'm starting to enjoy this. Senator Ayres 16913 It's fast. 13:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We were talking about the ABCC. I'm just looking at the time in terms of actually moving through them, because I do also have a number of questions in relation to the regulatory impact statement and the costs in that that I would like to ask you. I will go very briefly to the agreement approval, before I go to the costs in the regulatory impact statement. On page 125 of the revised explanatory memorandum, it states that changes in the bill to enterprise agreement approval requirements are intended to simplify requirements that need to be met for an enterprise agreement to be approved by the Fair Work Commission, which are often regarded as overly prescriptive and complex. One such source of complexity relates to section 181 and the way it's traditionally been interpreted by the Fair Work Commission in relation to which casuals can vote for an agreement. I understand that the government has indicated to employer groups that the changes contained in the bill will mean that the Fair Work Commission will take a less prescriptive approach. Employer groups are asking if that is the indication, that there will be a less prescriptive approach. 13:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes, the approval process is designed to be simpler and less prescriptive. 13:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Then, in terms of the indication to employer groups that the changes contained in the bill will mean that the Fair Work Commission will take that less prescriptive approach and, in particular, the issue that is in relation to which casuals can vote for an agreement, the indication to the employers is correct? 13:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. 13:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I then also confirm that the changes will mean that the Fair Work Commission won't fail to approve an agreement because of confusion regarding whether a casual employee is entitled to vote on the agreement or not? 13:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The intention is to streamline the process. However, of course each determination that the commission makes is a matter for the commission. 13:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So it went back to the discretion of the commission despite the intention of the government. That's fine. Can the minister confirm that if the Fair Work Commission continues to take a prescriptive approach—and, again, we are talking about the issue in relation to which casuals can vote for agreement, and I do appreciate the very clear evidence, which I thank you for—that the government has indicated to employer groups that the changes contained in the bill will mean that the Fair Work Commission will take a less prescriptive approach? I also understand your evidence in relation to 'Can the minister confirm the changes will mean that the Fair Work Commission won't fail to approve agreement because of confusion regarding whether a casual employee is entitled to vote on the agreement or not?' That is left to the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. In relation to the agreement approval and the issue of the casuals and the confusion, can the minister confirm that if the Fair Work Commission continues to take a prescriptive approach to the issue of casual voting cohorts, despite confirming the government did indicate to employers that the changes in the bill will mean that the Fair Work Commission will take a less prescriptive approach—noting that obviously it is ultimately a matter for the Fair Work Commission—that the government would then commit to amending the legislation to avoid agreements being rejected by the Fair Work Commission? 13:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government is confident that the changes that are proposed here will deliver the less prescriptive approach, including in relation to the matters that we've just been traversing. But, of course there is a review programmed in at the two-year level. 13:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As part of the review, if the Fair Work Commission was to continue to take a prescriptive approach to the issue of casual voting cohorts, given what the government has confirmed it indicated to employer groups, that the changes contained in the bill would mean that the Fair Work Commission would take a less prescriptive approach, would the government then commit to amending the legislation to avoid agreements being rejected by the Fair Work Commission? 13:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It, along with other matters, will be a subject for the review, and the government will consider the outcome of the review when it arrives. 13:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will turn to some questions that I put in relation to, in particular, the mining and resources industry in Australia. I think you'd be aware of the front page of the Australian today and, in particular, the comments made by Mike Henry of BHP. They've had the opportunity—it's not BHP. Certain employers in the mining and resources industry have had the opportunity to consider the evidence and the answers that were given to the questions that I asked last night. I have some questions in relation to government amendment (44), which was moved last night. They're in relation to more detail and definition. We didn't get to fully explore this last night, given we hit a hard marker. We went through the common-interest test last night, and that was fine—left to the discretion of the Fair Work Commission in relation to each limb. We didn't actually get on to looking at what 'reasonably comparable' means. The government last night, at 6.26 pm, I think, tabled its amendments to the bill. The question is currently before the chair. Government amendment (44), which was moved last night, introduces the comparability test. For example, where two separate businesses in the mining industry operate different rostering schedules to create their own efficiencies which are fundamental to their operating models, is this enough for them to be considered not reasonably comparable? 13:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I can confirm that this amendment was developed following representations from industry, and it does go to the questions that you have raised, but ultimately, that determination will be a matter for the commissioner. 13:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Amendment (44) reads: Schedule 1, item 629, page 216 (after line 25), at the end of paragraph 216DC(1)(b), add: (v) if the requirements of subsection (3) are met— Okay, tick— the operations and business activities of the employer are reasonably comparable with those of the other employers who are covered by the agreement. That's the reasonable comparability test that you say will be inserted into the act as a result of the representations from the mining industry. The question I put to you was: where two separate businesses in the mining industry operate different rostering schedules to create their own efficiencies which are fundamental to their operating models—you can see where this is going, because this is very, very serious in terms of 'reasonably comparable'—is this enough for them to be not considered reasonably comparable? The answer you gave was that this amendment had been made as a result of representations from the mining and resources industry, but then you also said it is actually a matter for the Fair Work Commission. Given that this amendment has been put in as a result of the conversations you had with the mining and resources industry, they are the ones saying they are more confused than ever now as a result of this and they desperately need the guidance. In relation to the conversations and the representations, again, I ask you: what further guidance can we give in terms of 'reasonably comparable' or 'not reasonably comparable'? I was part of the talks. The minister's office and the department were part of the talks. We've got an amendment that's been inserted, but there's nothing around the amendment. Or could you take me to the explanatory memorandum and take me through the guidance in relation to 'reasonably comparable'? 13:45 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I might answer in two ways. The first is, of course, that the commission's required to consider all of the matters that it's required to consider, including a public interest requirement. The amendment would add a new subparagraph to paragraph 249(1)(b), which contains the factors of which the Fair Work Commission has to satisfy itself before making a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed agreement. So the new subparagraph would require the commission to be satisfied that, in respect of each employer, it is a common interest employer and the operations and business activities of that employer are reasonably comparable with those of other employers that would be covered by the proposed agreement that relates to the single interest employer authorisation. So, employers of different size and scale might, depending on all the circumstances, be found to have clearly identifiable common interests for the purpose of bargaining together. The amendment would ensure that the Fair Work Commission must be also satisfied the operations and business activities of an employer are reasonably comparable with the other employers. It may be open to the commission to conclude that, despite two employers of a similar size, scope and scale operating in the same industry, they are not reasonably comparable. That is open to the commission, once the full extent of their business activities and operations are considered. 13:47 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): I think we've just done a full circle. The amendment, as you have rightly stated, sets out, 'If the common interest test is satisfied'—so we agree that the common interest test has been satisfied. We don't know what that common interest test is; we've got some basic guidance. But let's say, you are right, the Fair Work Commission has made a determination that the common interest test is satisfied. You are now inserting the additional amendment that says: … if the requirements of subsection (3) are met— Tick, they've been met— the operations and business activities of the employer are reasonably comparable … I agree. I have no issues with you there. But we seem to be a hamster on a wheel again, because the issue that we have is: what is the meaning of 'reasonably comparable'? I will give you another situation. Where specialist contractors are employed under a maintenance contract, these contractors have the same trades as employees in the host company but are specialised to fulfil specific roles—that is, for example, not labour hire. Could those specialist contractors be deemed reasonably comparable to employees in the host company under the legislation? The issue I have with the answer you gave—I agree; it's all set out in the act, but what I'm asking for is where is the additional guidance in relation to 'reasonably comparable'? Another example is two mining companies that compete at this level; they're all paying way above but we understand there is no carve out; the rostering system is different, but it's agreed and it suits those sites. Is that enough to actually have them as reasonably comparable, or does the difference mean they're not reasonably comparable? Ultimately, the words are there, but there doesn't appear to be any guidance given in relation to the words. 13:49 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The Fair Work Commission will assess those matters and the other matters that it's required to assess. On this side, we place great confidence in the independence and the capacity of the Fair Work Commission. Over the last few decades, I think the historical record demonstrates that we treat that independence seriously. You'll find that, when Labor was in government the last two times, we took industry and the industrial relations community seriously. We took expertise and independence seriously. You'll find that people with great capacity from the trade union movement, from employer associations, from the community sector and from the legal fraternity were appointed by previous Labor governments, with an ethos of independence and a commitment to the public interest. That wasn't demonstrated by the last government. I think 11 out of 44 appointments were not friends of the previous government and from employer associations. The last government treated the Fair Work Commission the same way it treated the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That has undermined industry's confidence in the independence of that institution. But on this side we put some faith in the capacity of the commission and its full bench to work through these issues in a sensible, pragmatic kind of way. 13:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I don't know if you were here last night or earlier today when I said that the questions I ask are very specific, they're very genuine and they're in relation to statutory interpretation going forward, given that the records of Senate proceedings—including the records of where we are now, in the committee stage—can be utilised by others when they're interpreting what the government's amendments mean. I think you actually do political diatribe better than Senator Watt. I really do. I prefer your approach to it. But it doesn't assist statutory interpretation. It'll just be no, no, no, no. So now we go back to the actual answer to the question. To assist those going forward in terms of statutory interpretation, I just need to take you through this. This is a substantial amendment. You've had to bring forward this amendment because of representations made to you by particular industries. The issue I'm having is: the chamber doesn't have the benefit of a definition in relation to what 'reasonably comparable' actually means. With all due respect, I'm not asking you about appointments to the Fair Work Commission. I'm not going to question whether or not someone has expertise. I'm asking you: what is the guidance the government is giving to the Fair Work Commission in relation to 'the operations and business activities of the employer are reasonably comparable'? 13:53 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I appreciate the spirit in which the questions are asked. Occasionally you'll find that, when questions go to some of the aspects of the previous government's record in relation to the independence of the Fair Work Commission, I find it hard to resist pointing out the track record of politicisation of that institution. However, to your question: the amendment would also insert a new subsection—I think it's 249(1AA)—that would provide that, if an application for a single-interest employer authorisation is made by a bargaining representative under paragraph 248(1)(b), in respect of an employer that has 50 or more employees, it is presumed that the operations and business activities of the employer are reasonably comparable with those of the other employers that are covered by the agreement, unless the contrary is established. So the matters that are specified in subparagraph 249(1)(b)(vi) concern whether relevant employers are reasonably comparable in terms of their operations and business activities. Such evidence is likely to concern the nature and size of the employers and their operations and their business activities. While some of this information may be available, at least in part, to employees, particularly in smaller enterprises, much of it will only be known to the employer, or to employees only as it pertains to their role; that is, it may only be apparent to them in a partial or fragmentary way. This is particularly acute in terms of the nature of the employer's enterprise, the employer's business activities and operations. In most cases such information will be most readily available to employers or their bargaining representatives. These are considerations which must be balanced. Who should bear the burden of establishing that the relevant test is met or not met? Having regard to the burden that could be posed in enterprises of 20 to 49 employees, it is appropriate in such cases to require employees and their bargaining representatives to establish that the relevant test is made when making the application for the authorisation. With respect to employers with 50 or more employees, due to their increased size and complexity of their operations, they are more likely to be in a position to provide the relevant evidence going to these matters. In such circumstances it would also be much more difficult for employees and their representatives to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the test is met. It is appropriate, therefore, in the government's view, that the amendments provide for a rebuttable presumption and an opportunity for employers—that is, employers with 50 or more employees—to establish that the relevant test is not met in relation to their business. And for the kids upstairs listening to this, there will be a test at the end of the session! 13:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Has the government tabled the final explanatory memorandum in relation to this bill? I want to make sure we're working off the same documents. 13:57 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes, the supplementary has been tabled. 13:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to go through what you've just put to the chamber. In terms of the amendment that we're referring to, it does also state that if the employer that will be covered by the agreement employed 50 employees or more at the time that the application was made, it is presumed that the operations and business activities of the employer are reasonably comparable with those of other employers that are covered by the agreement, unless the contrary is proved. I believe that's what you were reading out. 13:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. 13:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does this mean that for employers with less than 50 employees, it will be for the employee representatives to prove that the employers have reasonably comparable operations? 13:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes, Again, it's a different onus. 13:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The question I want to pursue, then, is: does this reverse onus for employers with less than 50 employees apply for other statutory tests? Does it apply for the common interest test? Does it apply to the public interest test? 13:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think that's right. The tests that we have just been traversing apply to that stream. We will be in a position, I think, perhaps later this afternoon, to come back to this question— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281603 Minister, as it is very close to 2 pm, the committee will report progress to the Senate. Progress reported. MINISTRY 49 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 49 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Watt will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In Senator Watt's absence, ministers will represent portfolios in accordance with the letter circulated to the President and party leaders and Independent senators. I'm happy to run through the list if any senator wishes. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Ministerial Conduct 49 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to the release of ministerial diaries by the Attorney-General and the Treasurer detailing their first 100 days in office. The Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, has said, 'I'm going to continue to work with colleagues and across the Public Service on making sure that there is as much transparency as possible about our government information and ministerial diaries.' Minister, given the commitment of the Attorney-General to create 'as much transparency as possible about ministerial diaries', why is the Prime Minister refusing to release his diary, putting him at odds with his own Attorney-General and Treasurer? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I assume these are FOI claims or requests, not one of the many orders for production that seem to be occurring at the moment. Obviously, every freedom-of-information request is distinct and has to be considered on its merits, and every minister will have to respond to requests in a manner that is appropriate to those individual circumstances. I'm not the FOI decision-maker, but I know that FOI decision-makers obviously will have to make a judgement on the basis of the merits of the application before them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, does the government have a government policy regarding the release of ministerial diaries? If so, what is it? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government observes the provisions of the freedom-of-information legislation, and applications are processed in accordance with that legislation. That's the— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, that is the appropriate way in which these matters should be dealt with. The PRESIDENT 112096 Second supplementary, Senator Birmingham? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that FOI applications for ministerial diaries remain outstanding for some other ministers, including herself? Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs be releasing her diary and adopting the Attorney-General's approach to transparency, or will she be joining the Prime Minister in thumbing her nose at the Attorney-General? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Here we go again—Senator Birmingham's new-found interest in transparency! I bet you didn't release yours, did you, mate? You didn't release yours, and nor did anyone release the ministerial list that showed the secret ministries that the Morrison government was engaged in, nor did anyone release the details of Senator McKenzie using spreadsheets to allocate government moneys, nor did anyone release how it is that you funded car parks which people didn't want. So the Australian people, I think, will look at you and your questions, as a former member of the leadership group who helped cover up all of this, and they will look with a very clear eye at the hypocrisy on the other side of the table. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X On the question of direct relevance, the minister has spent 51 seconds talking about the former government in answer to a question about whether or not she would comply with an FOI request for her own diary, and just meet the same standards as the Attorney-General, or thumb her nose, like the PM has. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, you've made the point of order. I'll direct the minister to— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath and Senator Birmingham, I'm responding to the point of order. Minister, I will direct you to that part of the question. Senator WONG 00AOU Decisions will be made in accordance with the freedom-of-information legislation. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Socialist Republic of Vietnam 50 14:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber and gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Vietnam, and I know they've met many senators and MPs across the parliament. The delegation is led by His Excellency Mr Vuong Dinh Hue, President of the National Assembly. On behalf of all senators I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Albanese Government 50 14:05 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. How is the Albanese government delivering on its plans for a better future for all Australians? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Payman for her question, and I say this: after a decade of wage suppression, of spiralling childcare and healthcare costs, of ideological wars which are still occurring and of an out-of-touch former government that thrived on secrecy and cover-ups, Australia did need action, and this government is delivering. We're working to get wages moving and putting downward pressure on costs, and from our first day in office our support ensured an increase to the minimum wage and a pay rise for aged-care workers. Albanese Labor are investing in cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, paid parental leave and secure jobs with better pay. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I take the interjections, because when you talk about secure jobs with better pay, there's nothing that gets the Liberals moving more than that, is there? A government senator: They hate it. Senator WONG 00AOU They hate it. We're acting to make workplaces safer from sexual harassment, with the passage of the respect at work bill, based on recommendations which were left unfinished, and we're ensuring Australia has the skills of tomorrow, creating 180,000 new fee-free TAFE places. We've expanded the Commonwealth seniors health card. We've ended the cashless debit card. We've established a royal commission into robodebt. We have delivered the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. We passed an historic climate change bill and updated our climate targets. Senator WONG 00AOU You should listen; you might learn something, Senator Ruston. We've invested in renewable energy and Rewiring the Nation. We are establishing the Disaster Ready Fund, a vital tool as we battle floods across Australia. We have ended the cover-up culture. The majority of those opposite refused to censure their former leader. All of them lined up to defend him. Of course, the National Anti-Corruption Commission that they spent years trying to avoid has now been passed under an Albanese Labor government. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Payman for her first supplementary, I am going to remind senators, particularly on my left, that you are being incredibly disorderly. You are shouting so loud that I cannot get the attention of Senator Wong. It is unacceptable, it is disrespectful and it's disorderly. 14:08 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Minister, how is the Albanese government delivering on its plans to help Australians with the cost of living? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, as one of the key offenders, I have not even called the minister and you've started interjecting again. 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese Labor government is addressing the cost-of-living crisis, created under the Liberal and National government, with our cost-of-living plan: cheaper child care, cheaper medicine, expanding paid parental leave to six months, more affordable housing and getting wages moving. These are all things they could have done, but in nine years they didn't do them. We have already secured an increase in the minimum wage and an important pay rise for aged-care workers, and our secure jobs, better pay policy will boost wages even further. We on this side understand the impact that higher energy prices are having on households and businesses. But you know, we're actually trying to work on how we support households through that, how we have a response. Do you know what your response was? 'Let's hide it!'—let's hide it before the next election, let's make sure no Australian knows about the hike in fees, hide it until after the election. What a disgrace. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Minister, how is the Albanese government delivering on its plans to make us more influential and stronger in the world? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to the senator, and I know this is an area in which she has such a great interest and personal knowledge. We saw over the last nine years the slashing of Australia's development assistance. We saw Mr Dutton returning to the rhetoric around development assistance in the House this sitting period, and really that was a disgrace, because it reduced our influence and it left a vacuum for others to fill, and we have a lot of catching up to do. That is why we are committed to renewing our closest relationships and advancing our interests and values. That's why we're boosting Pacific security and defence, supporting critical infrastructure and expanding Pacific labour mobility, and it's why we have increased Australia's official development assistance to the Pacific and South-East Asia—because it is in our national interest. We are rebuilding relationships to ensure that Australia is the partner of choice in the region for our security and for the security of our region. Renewable Energy 51 14:11 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer you to the answers you gave yesterday regarding secret government modelling in a document titled 'Estimated impacts of CFPS and associated coalmine closures', dated October 2020, which details almost 800 job losses in the Hunter Valley alone associated with government policies and the closure of mines. In April this year the now Prime Minister, when visiting the Hunter Valley mining communities, was quoted by the Newcastle Herald under the heading 'Anthony Albanese "guarantees" no jobs will be lost on road to net zero'. Can the minister advise on whether the Prime Minister stands by his guarantees? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question, and I did have the opportunity overnight to follow up some of what he asked yesterday. I'm advised that the closures he talked about were in fact announced under your government. So I do find it somewhat passing strange that you try to make political mileage, as you are doing and as you did yesterday, about a closure that was actually flagged under you. That's probably a fact I should have been aware of, and I'm grateful to my colleagues and to the departments for letting me know that. But these are closures that were flagged under the former coalition government. Obviously we are working with the New South Wales government—which I note has an emissions reduction target of 50 per cent by 2030, so I look forward to your criticism of them, if that is in fact the way you want to approach this—to ensure that the Hunter and other regions benefit from new jobs and opportunities in clean energy. One of the differences between those on that side of the chamber and those on this side is that we want to look after workers. We're a movement and a party that has workers at our core. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, I know it's hard for those who spend so much of their time arguing against pay increases and telling us the sky is going to fall if there's a $1 pay increase and saying we can't afford to give aged-care workers or those on the minimum wage an increase. But those on this side understand that a transition is occurring and that will occur as a consequence of what is happening in global markets as well as what is being committed to I think by both sides of government. The difference between you and us is that we will ensure that there is a transition that is about— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, a first supplementary? 14:14 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Thank you for that. In the same Newcastle Herald article, when referencing the Prime Minister's guarantee, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that this wasn't about policies and 'not only can we guarantee it but our modelling guarantees it'. Does the Prime Minister stand by the Labor Party's pre-election modelling? Or does he accept the official government modelling that says Labor's policies in the Hunter will cause 800 job losses? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I remind those opposite that the closures that are referenced were announced under you. So I find it a little interesting, and I think many will, that those opposite— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU You really want to have your cake and eat it too, don't you? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator Birmingham! Senator McKenzie! There's a running commentary from the left-hand side of the chamber every time the minister speaks. Not only is that disorderly; it's also incredibly loud. And I would ask you to listen in respectful silence.. Senator WONG 00AOU Respectful or disrespectful silence! A bit less noise might be helpful—but anyway. There is a transition that is occurring in our economy and globally— Senator Canavan 245212 'Transition' means you lose your job! Senator WONG 00AOU Oh! Would you like to speak, Senator Canavan? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! Senator WONG 00AOU You'd get plenty of opportunity to speak if Senator Cash ever sat down, I suppose. Senator Cash might actually give you an opportunity to speak! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! On my left and my right! I have a senator on her feet. Senator Rice? Senator Rice 155410 President, we denied leave for Senator Canavan to rant on about coalmining jobs and destroying the planet in the meantime. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, it's not— Honourable senators interjec ting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ayres! And Senator McGrath. I'm sorry, there's so much noise in this chamber that I only heard the voices to give Senator Canavan leave. I did not hear anyone say he was denied leave. Senator Cadell, I believe we're up to your second supplementary question. 14:18 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Is the modelling that the Prime Minister relied on to make those false promises of job guarantees to the people of the Hunter the same modelling that the Prime Minister and the government used to promise 97 times before the election that Australians would see a $275 reduction in their power bills? If that is the modelling, how can anyone trust what the government and the Prime Minister say? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make this point, if you want to talk about truthfulness: those on your side are signed up to the same target as we are for 2050. This is a policy and a political point. You are also signed up to net zero by 2050, remember? I know you want to talk about that a lot in Kooyong and North Sydney—it didn't help. Senator Payne M56 Answer the question! Senator WONG 00AOU Well, this goes to policy. Meanwhile, Senator Canavan gets up and gives that rant, which shows that it was all fake. You thought you could say one thing in one place and one thing in another. Well, we are really clear: there is a transition that is occurring, a change in the global economy. We either get ahead of it and we help workers and communities thrive in that, or you keep going to them and lying to them, misleading them, about what is happening, because you're signed up to the same policy. You just don't have anything to back it. Climate Change 53 14:19 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In 1991, Vanuatu, on behalf of small island states, first asked the question: 'Who should pay for climate catastrophe?' Over the next three decades, wealthy nations of the global north dodged and deflected that question, while continuing to fuel the climate crisis. They relentlessly pursued profit and power, putting the world on track for climate catastrophe and fuelling climate disasters. These disasters have affected 33 million people in Pakistan, and 50 million people in the Horn of Africa face the threat of famine, amongst many others. After decades of pushing by the global south, a loss and damage fund has finally been agreed to. New Zealand, Denmark, Germany and Scotland have already committed to contributing. Will the government today commit to paying our fair share of loss and damage? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are committed to an effective global response on climate and, as Mr Bowen made clear, we welcome the historical progress made in— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU If you want to waste your question time, I'm happy for you to do so! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll start again. We welcome the historical progress made in agreeing to a new loss and damage fund, and the parties have committed to exploring— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! This is a question from Senator Faruqi. I think the least you could do is listen in silence so that the answer can be heard at that end of the chamber. Minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Interjections from you are particularly disorderly. Senator Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU We are pleased that the parties have committed to exploring a broad range of ways to provide support to vulnerable countries, including those in the Pacific. We have heard our Pacific family when they've said the region's loss and damage needs are distinct from adaptation and resilience. And, as you know, we are actively working with Pacific partners to consider new climate finance options, including on loss and damage, and to ensure that global funding mechanisms work for the Pacific. So there's an engagement and a willingness to discuss. I would make this point, because the Greens come in here and they want us to do this but they also want to reduce revenue from other sources, such as— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU What do you think happens if we end coal exports? What do you think happens? But I would make this point— Honour able senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I've called the chamber to order. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I simply make this point: it would be much better for the country if there was bipartisanship on development assistance. I regret that that was lost under those opposite and appears to continue to be lost, but— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, as you well know, the climate crisis is an existential threat to the Pacific, where communities are facing rising sea levels and extreme storms. The government claims to be listening to the Pacific islands. The Pacific islands have waited decades for loss and damage funding that is owed to those nations as a matter of global justice. What will your government do to ensure that a fund is established urgently, with no room for backsliding? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm interested in the implication about our motivation in that, because we are motivated, genuinely— Senator WONG 00AOU We had a long discussion yesterday about motivations. Senator McKim demanded something be withdrawn. I notice you did put it on social media afterwards anyway, but that's okay. But I would say to Senator Faruqi: the implication that we're not genuine in our engagement with our Pacific neighbours is wrong. We are. That does not mean there is not a lot that we have to work through, and I have been upfront with them. I have said: 'We are a highly emissions-intensive economy. We are seeking to shift the trajectory—the direction in which we're heading—and we are doing so belatedly. It will cost us more and it will be harder because of nine years of inaction. But we are serious about doing it.' So, please, if there was an implication, and perhaps I misheard, that somehow we are not genuine in how we engage with the Pacific—because we understand the nature of the threat—it is incorrect. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary? 14:25 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Minister for Climate Change and Energy tabled his climate change statement earlier today but failed to even mention the elephant in the room: the impact of new coal and gas on Australia's climate targets. And yet the latest greenhouse gas inventory, also released today, shows that emissions from gas are increasing. Does the government acknowledge that burning coal and gas is causing and fuelling the climate crisis? And why won't it rule out opening new coal and gas projects? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I've answered this question many times. I understand this is the political campaign that the Greens party wishes to run between now and the next election, if I may say; that's a decision for you. But actually the policy challenges are far greater—far greater. So you can have a mantra around that, but what we need to do is transition an economy which is not only emissions intensive domestically but reliant on highly emissions-intensive industries for much of our export revenue. Now, we have to transition the economy, change the economy, so our people, our children and our country can thrive in a net zero world. That is an enormous undertaking. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take that interjection. I'll take that interjection, because, as I said to Senator Milne years ago, it's possible that people might just disagree. It's not because we're corrupt; we just might disagree— (Time expired) Tourism Industry 54 14:26 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. As we come to the end of 2022, the tourism sector is hoping for a Christmas that sees Australians able to travel in a way they haven't been able to in recent years. Can the minister outline the steps the Albanese Labor government has taken, since being elected, to support small and medium-sized tourism businesses recover from the impact of the global pandemic? 14:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle, who is very interested in the topic of tourism and comes from that great state of Western Australia. Yes, the Albanese Labor government is supporting the tourism and travel sector's recovery in a way that the former Liberal-National government never, ever did. We know the vast majority of tourism businesses are small and medium sized. They collectively make a significant contribution to employment and our economy. To support this sector, we are delivering on our commitments, including through our $48 million investment over four years, and we're directly engaging with industry to address the challenges that they face. In August we held a tourism jobs summit to hear from industry about the challenges they face. We've launched a visitor-economy disability pilot. We're working on a project to better connect workers and employers in the industry. In October I hosted a Tourism Ministers' Meeting in South Australia, with state and territory counterparts, to collaborate on support for the industry, and I look forward to the next meeting, which will include the tourism minister from the re-elected Andrews Labor government. In October we launched the Come and Say G'day campaign to get international tourists back to Australia. Already, Senator Sterle, it's attracted 122 million views, which translated to a 74 per cent increase in traffic on Australia.com. Senator FARRELL I0N No, I'm going to come to the Bellarine and Mornington—don't worry, Senator Henderson!—not in this question, though. And last month we launched the Caravan Parks Grant Program to help park operators upgrade their facilities. The Albanese Labor government understands the challenges we have faced in tourism and travel, and we are committed— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a first supplementary? 14:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Can the minister outline further details about how the Albanese Labor government is helping small and medium-sized tourism businesses address labour and skills shortages so they can recover and thrive? 14:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can. In August we held a tourism jobs and skills summit to hear directly from industry about labour and skills challenges. You never held one. In September, we announced $3.3 million to establish a visitor economy disability pilot to help people living with disability secure sustainable jobs in the tourism industry. The pilot will address barriers identified by small and medium tourism businesses in recruiting, retraining and progressing staff with disabilities. We are working with the industry on a project to provide a one-stop shop showcasing career pathways, connecting employers with prospective workers and providing workers with information on jobs and upskilling opportunities. We want to see tourism workers return to the sector, after they were forced to find work elsewhere under the previous Liberal National government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a second supplementary? 14:30 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Minister, in your earlier answer, you touched on the Caravan Parks Grant Program to support businesses to improve their caravan parks. Can the minister outline how park operators, whether on the Mornington or Bellarine peninsulas, or in tropical North Queensland or, more importantly, outback WA, will benefit from this program? 14:31 Senator I0N South Australia FARRELL (—) (): I can outline that, Senator Sterle. Thank you for your great interest in this topic. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting tourism businesses, including caravan park operators, to recover, grow and thrive. I know that Senator Sterle— Senator FARRELL I0N and potentially even Senator Henderson will be pleased to hear that applications are currently open not just for caravan parks across the Mornington and Bellarine peninsulas. Applications will be open not just in tropical Far North Queensland or outback Western Australia. Grants are open for park operators all the way across Australia. I can assure you that there will be no colour coded spreadsheets from this government. The $10 million Caravan Parks Grant Program will provide grants of between $10,000 to $100,000 to help eligible park operators upgrade their park facilities. As we move to the holiday period, I wish all those working in the tourism industry— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 55 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Turnell, Professor Sean 55 14:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—Professor Sean Turnell, Dr Ha Vu, we also welcome you back to Australia safe and sound. We thank you for the way in which you have always conducted yourselves, each of you, particularly noting that your engagement in Myanmar was one to help uplift others, to deliver for others and that the price you paid was an immense one. I too associate the opposition with the remarks of Senator Wong in thanking all of those who worked so hard to secure your release and we know that you will continue to work hard wherever you can for the people of Myanmar. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Education 56 14:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Gallagher. The ALP national platform commits a Labor government to ensuring that disadvantaged schools get the biggest funding increases in the shortest time. Does this government stand by that promise? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for her advocacy on behalf of children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who require assistance and support through their schooling years. The answer to the question is yes. The Labor Party has through our platform clearly outlined our position on education. We are the party that introduced needs based funding in recognition of students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, whether that be where they lived, whether they had learning disabilities, whether they came from non-English speaking backgrounds or whether they be First Nations children. We recognise that the resourcing of those schools needs to accommodate student populations. We have a long and proud history of that. I know that Minister Clare is working very hard in the next round of negotiations with states and territories about how to best meet not only the commitments we've outlined in our platform but the position that the government has taken around ensuring that the education system, mindful of the fact the states and territories have a significant role here and the independent and Catholic sectors also educate large numbers of children and young people, recognises disadvantage and that we try to structure our funding accordingly. I also know from my previous role that education funding and how the resourcing is applied is a very contested issue. It's not easy, it's not straightforward, but we remain deeply committed to ensuring that every child, regardless of where they live, where they come from, what their parents' incomes are, get access to the best education possible in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrell, a first supplementary? 14:37 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Independent special assistance schools are a special stream of schooling that exists to provide education to the most socially and economically disadvantaged children in Australia, yet the government's 2023 changes to funding calculations will see their budgets cut. They're not getting the biggest funding increase in the shortest time; they're getting a funding cut right now. How is that not a broken promise? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have seen the reports about the situation in Tasmania. I understand that you and Senator Lambie have raised concerns about what is happening under this funding model and how those decisions are flowing on to schools. I also know that you have met with the Minister for Education and that you have advocated on behalf of the Jaqui Lambie Network, on behalf of the schools in Tasmania or on behalf of a particular school. I understand the minister told you that this is a scheme created under the former government. However, when it was brought to his attention about the impacts and how they flowed through to schools, he asked the Department of Education to work towards resolving the issue. This work is happening and he is working with some urgency. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrell, a second supplementary? 14:39 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania These schools are really important. My own nephew is on an 18-month waiting list and he had to leave Tassie to go to Victoria to get educated. Schools are making decisions about which staff to let go right now. They are asking you to reverse this decision urgently. I understand we are working towards it but it really does needs to happen toute de suite. 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I said in my previous answer, acknowledging what Senator Tyrrell has said, I understand the minister is working on taking advice around what to do about this. I don't know the specifics about the funding scheme, but I don't know that it's having the intended—the consequences of how it's rolling out aren't what was intended as I understand it from this scheme. The minister is taking advice. He's had a number of meetings with Independent Schools Australia to understand their concerns about the scheme that, as I said, we inherited from the former government. When a resolution is reached, Independent Schools Australia and any impacted schools will be informed directly. I also understand, from running a school system, that schools will be taking decisions now in the lead-up to the calendar year for the next school year. The minister understands this as well. Energy 57 14:40 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Since the Labor government's first budget four weeks ago, in which the government had no response to the immediate energy price rises, various government ministers have publicly flagged export controls on gas, price caps on coal and gas, a new mining tax and direct energy subsidies to households. Other than publicly floating different policies, can the minister finally provide some certainty to Australians, to industry and to investors by ruling out— Government senators interjecting— The 10000 Order. Senator BRAGG 256063 It's very hard—I'm struggling to get the question out here. It's very loud over there. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, I have called senators to order. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators on my right. Senator BRAGG 256063 Don't you think? I thought you'd agree. So other than publicly floating different policies, can the minister finally provide certainty to Australians, to industry, to investors by ruling out intervention that would only make a difficult situation even worse? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm asked a question about policy certainty. I'm asked a question about policy certainty from the coalition. I'm asked a question about policy certainty from the coalition on energy. How many energy policies did they have? Was it one? Was it two? Was it 10? Was it 12? Was it 15? Was it 18? Was it 20? A government senator: Higher! Senator WONG 00AOU Was it 22? Oh my goodness, 22 policies! And, surprise, surprise, the market said, 'Well, we don't want to invest when we don't even know what the policy framework is.' We saw dispatchable energy out and we had less energy in; prices started to increase; there was a default market offer with an increase. Guess what their great certain policy response was? 'Let's hide it!' 'I tell you what, I've got a great idea,' said Scotty Morrison and Angus. They all sit there in a room—maybe with this one here, with Senator Birmingham— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry, Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor. They said: 'We know what we'll do; we'll just hide it. That's what we'll do. That's our great policy response.' Then we come to government and we see the mess and, yes, we are working our way through your mess, which has got worse. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left. Senator Birmingham! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU When we come to government what we discover is a hidden price increase. We discover an energy market which is on the edge. All on top of what is occurring in global energy markets, which Senator Rennick says are irrelevant, but Senator Birmingham stood on this side and told us all about. We will work through this and we will work through this with the states, but nobody on that side can— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, your first supplementary. 14:44 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The Queensland, New South Wales and South Australian governments have all expressed opposition to price caps on energy. Will the government rule out price caps that just risk deterring energy investment and exacerbating the current shortage for many years to come? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Unlike those opposite, we do understand the importance of policy certainty and we do understand the importance of working with the states. As the Prime Minister said, I think last night on 7.30, 'We will work through these issues, including with the states,' and, obviously, with the National Cabinet. We will work through this with the states, and, of course, it is a difficult issue. We don't shy away from that. We are dealing with a legacy problem, or we're dealing with a global markets problem. What I would say, Senator Bragg, is that if more on your side understood some of those policy issues, I suspect the country wouldn't be in the position it is. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a second supplementary question. 14:46 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales This week at Senate estimates, both the Treasury secretary and the governor of the Reserve Bank said that Australia needs more gas. Why did the government cut supply-side policies in its budget, and can you name one government policy that aims to increase the production of Australian gas? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure what the minister is referring to—sorry, what the senator is referring to. I gave you a promotion, Senator Bragg! I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I would make a point about gas supply. Between 2014 and 2021, east coast gas production increased— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Van, you lost the state election, mate, maybe give it a rest for a little while? Between 2014 and 2021, east coast gas production increased 300 per cent, in great part because— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a point of order? Senator Canavan 245212 Thank you, Madam President. The point of order is on relevance. The question went to policies, not historical statistics that the minister is referring to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. The minister is being directly relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU You might not like to know this: despite the 300 per cent increase in gas production, domestic gas prices went up by 420 per cent in real terms over that time. So, the point is, the policies you had failed. That's the point. (Time expired) Covid-19: Cancer Diagnoses 58 14:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The recent release of Australian Bureau of Statistics provisional mortality data for our nation shows all-cause mortality to the end of August is currently a staggering 18,671, or 17 per cent higher than the historical average. A report that appeared in the Lancet medical journal also shows that Europe is facing an increase in cancer diagnoses, after an estimated one million cases went unfound due to the COVID lockdowns and other draconian measures. Can the minister advise what we are doing here in Australia to make up for the many thousands of likely missed cancer diagnoses over the last two years? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Babet for the question. We are working with the states and territories. I don't want to align myself with the mortality data, because I haven't seen what you were citing from, but the broad— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAG ING That's fine. I'm not questioning it. I'm saying I haven't seen it. My answer is in relation directly to the question not the preamble. The question was: what are we doing? There is no doubt that our health services over the last two years were significantly affected by the pandemic. Services that would normally be provided through hospitals, through people going to GPs and through people seeking health treatment because they had a concern, significantly changed during the pandemic. We are working with the states and territories, as you would expect, through the National Health Reform Agreement, regarding transitioning out of the pandemic and the COVID focus. There'll be significant pressure on the hospitals, but also in primary care, as people come forward. There is no doubt there was delayed seeking of health attention or seeking of health assistance and access to services through the pandemic. It will take some time to work through that, but we are working with the states and territories—through the Prime Minister and the first ministers through National Cabinet—about pressures in the health system and transitioning away from COVID-19 and the COVID-19 focus. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Deaths with COVID-19 generally—not solely from COVID-19—have been recorded by the ABS as 7,727 at the end of August. Even if we exclude all deaths with COVID-19, we are still seeing excess deaths of about 10,944. Can the minister explain the cause of this alarming excess mortality or advise what research, if any, is being done to look into it? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, I haven't seen the data to which the senator is referring, so I think it is appropriate that I don't immediately accept those statistics. I think there will be, over time, a lot of research and assessment done about our response to COVID-19 and some of the other consequences of the fact that our health system had to respond to a global pandemic, and therefore other services were either wound down or didn't operate, or people chose not to seek assistance during the pandemic. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of academics and researchers who are interested in assessing that and then making recommendations about what should happen when the next global pandemic hits this country or all countries. I'm sure that will be done. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria We've seen some alarming data out of South Australia sourced by Senator Alex Antic, to my right, which shows a material increase in cardiac presentations in 15- to 44-year-olds commencing in July 2021, a time when there were very minimal COVID cases. What is the minister doing to investigate the underlying cause of the spike in heart related issues? Does the government still assert that the mRNA injections are safe and effective? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I haven't seen Senator Antic's research either, and I'm not sure of your background in epidemiology and assessing what the health trends are during a global pandemic, but I can be corrected if you have some background in that. In relation to whether we think the vaccines are safe: yes. The TGA has gone through its processes. As you know, Senator Babet, they also report on adverse events. Myocarditis or pericarditis in younger people was one of the identified risks of those vaccines. Everybody was informed of that and it was seen as a risk. Where it affected people—particularly younger men, as I understand it—those adverse events were recorded. I should also say, the vaccines have saved thousands and thousands of lives, particularly the most vulnerable Australians, and the vaccine program was always about responding to that— (Time expired) Labor Government 59 14:54 Sen 231199 Tasmania ator URQUHART (—) (): My question is for the Minister for Finance, Minister for Women and Minister for the Public Service, Senator Gallagher. Could the minister update the Senate on the government's achievements across her three portfolios over the past six months? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much, Senator Urquhart, for your interest in my three portfolios and for the question. It has certainly been a very busy time since the Albanese government was elected six months ago. We've spent every single day focused on implementing our plan for a better economy, better budget and better future. We've begun the work of budget repair, restoring fiscal discipline to reverse the decade of economic mismanagement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume. Senator GALLAGHER ING In October we delivered a responsible budget that is right for the times and readies us for the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume. Senator GALLAGHER ING It puts to an end the record rorts and waste that riddled the budgets under those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator ING Investments in services and programs that— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, I called you at least three times, and you just chose to continue. That is incredibly disrespectful. I ask you to listen in silence. Senat ING Sorry, I didn't hear the interjections. I've got a coping mechanism where I block them out. Investments in services and programs that matter to the Australian people, like child care, like aged care, like cheaper medicines, like housing, like climate— Senator McGrath 217241 What about cheaper power? Senator GALLAGHER ING There were billions of dollars in our Powering Australia plan—I take that interjection from you, Senator McGrath—to fix the energy mess that we inherited. The negligence of those opposite, when they were in government, to put their heads in the sand and pretend that most significant economic transformation and challenge facing the country just wasn't going to happen, that they didn't need to deal with it—we're dealing with it in our first budget. We've also begun implementing the Buy Australian Plan, which is our plan to use the government's purchasing power to help grow Australian businesses, create jobs, develop sovereign capability and back Australian businesses. Our spending review identified $22 billion in savings over four years. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 When there's quiet, I'm going to call Senator Urquhart for her first supplementary. 14:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Can the minister provide further information about how the government has begun meaningful reform to shift the dial on gender equality and reduce the barriers faced by women in this country? 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Urquhart for the question. As Minister for Women I'm very proud to say that gender equality has been at the core of this government from day one, because gender equality is a core Labor value. I don't need to convince my colleagues, men or women, that we need to get moving on gender equality. We just get on with it. The Albanese government is putting gender equality front and centre of our economic policy. We're giving women more choices through modernising and expanding PPL and making child care cheaper. We released the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Childrenunder the leadership— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, it was a very different plan, Senator Ruston, by the time it got signed off, let me tell you that, by the time the states and territories signed up to it. We've got our housing agenda. We're implementing the Respect@Work recommendations, including a positive duty for workplaces to prevent sexual harassment. We're beginning work on the national strategy for gender equality, guided by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, and there is more to do. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Can the minister provide further information about how the government has begun making the institution of the Australian Public Service stronger, more enduring and more aligned to the community that we are all here to serve? 14:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Urquhart for the question, again. Our government is building a stronger Public Service to better serve all Australians. We abolished the Liberal and National Party's arbitrary and damaging staffing cap that diminished the capability and capacity of the Public Service and led to an excessive and reflective reliance on wasteful external labour. We are reinvesting in the NDIA, in Services Australia and in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to improve service delivery for Australians. We've appointed a dedicated secretary for public sector reform to deliver on our agenda and have commenced an audit of employment to improve job security and save taxpayers' money. We have also restored the ability of workers and their representatives to bargain in good faith and be consulted. What about that? How radical is that! I want to take this opportunity to thank the 160,000 public servants who have worked so hard to support the government to deliver on our commitments to the Australian people. Energy 60 15:00 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Prior to the election, Prime Minister Albanese said to all Australians, 'I'll say this very clearly, they will be better off under a Labor government.' He promised that a Labor government will see electricity prices fall from the current levels by $275 for households by 2025. But isn't it true that, according to your own budget, this December Aussies will have to pay 50 per cent more just to run the aircon, pump the pool and turn on the Christmas lights? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It is the case— Honourable senat ors interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Did you call me? The PRESIDENT 112096 I did call you. Senators! Interjections across the chamber are particularly disorderly. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU It is the case that Australians are battling higher energy prices, and we know why that is: we know what we inherited and we know where global markets are. Senator WONG 00AOU I think you perfected the art of 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' I'll take the interjection from Senator Ruston—she says you don't take responsibility. We've got your people in the House voting against the censure motion for the former Prime Minister who made an artform of never taking responsibility for everything! So let's be clear about who has been prepared to be upfront with the Australian people, who are clear that we have a significant problem in our energy markets that the government is working through, which is as a consequence of nearly a decade of inaction and denial of 22 failed energy policies and what is occurring globally. I know those opposite don't want to be reminded of this, but the reality is renewables are the cheapest form of power. Opposition senators interjecting— Sen 00AOU You see? If you ever wanted an example of why energy markets are where they are, it's because you are still locked into an ideological battle, a vortex of an inaction, because of the fight between the Gerard Rennicks and the Andrew Braggs. Op position senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, resume your seat. Order, once again, on my left! Please continue, Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU The ideological vortex that is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please sit down. Senator Rennick, I have just called the chamber to order and the minute the minister is back on her feet you are interjecting. It is disorderly. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm actually happy to take Senator Rennick's interjections, because I think what it demonstrates—and so does the result in Victoria and the result of all those seats which were traditional Liberal heartland seats—is that your ideological fight internally has put you out of touch with the market and where most Australians are. That is the hard reality. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, a first supplementary? 15:03 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia In coming weeks Australians will be heading back to home to their families and then off to a well-deserved break. Some will be at the beach or some will head to the regions. Isn't it true that they'll be paying more than their plane tickets, more for their bus tickets and then more for their snacks at the servo and your government has no plans to fix it? 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What we are saying is this: We are investing $24 billion to fix transmission and speed up renewable energy. We have heads of agreement with the east coast LNG exporters to deliver more gas in 2023. The budget had a package to give the regulators— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 A point of order on relevance—my question went to cost of living. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant to that. Senator WONG 00AOU It might have something to do with this! The budget had a $67 million package to give regulators, including the ACCC, the AEI and AEMO, more powers to monitor gas supply and take action. We've overhauled the gas trigger to allow it to be activated quarterly if there is a shortfall and force exporters to divert supply for domestic markets. These are all things you did not do. We are working with the ACCC to strengthen the code of conduct between gas suppliers and customers to get reasonable prices in the market. We know there is more to do, but unlike you we are not engaged in an internal ideological fight between people like you, who might have a rational position, and Senator Rennick, who continues to argue a position that reminds me of The Flintstones. (Time expired) Honou rable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, senators on both sides! 15:05 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Very soon, Australians will be gathered around the table for Christmas lunch. They will not be better off. They will have paid more for the turkey, more for the ham, more for the bonbons, more for the beers—or possibly the prosecco—and more to get presents for the kids. Is this what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations meant when he said, 'People will be seeing in their bank accounts what a change in government means'? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, I've called the chamber to order, and you have constantly been interjecting, throughout the time Senator O'Sullivan was— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister. 15:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Unlike the good senator, I don't operate under the delusion that people around the Christmas lunch table are going to be thinking about politics. But I would say this: if they did, what they would know is that there is a party that has consistently supported lower wage rises, lower wages, for nearly a decade— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU There is a party that has proudly supported low wages as a deliberate feature of the Australian economy— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister— Senator WONG 00AOU there is a party who opposed a dollar-an-hour increase to the minimum wage, a party who opposed wage increases for aged-care workers and early childhood educators— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong! Please resume your seat. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 62 15:08 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. The first one went to transparency, and then we had some questions about the cost of living, and I seek to cover off on all of those in taking note this afternoon. The first question was on transparency. What we've seen with this government is a pattern of a lack of transparency, yet we heard time and time again throughout the election campaign and in the lead-up to it that the hallmark of this government would be transparency, it would be open to scrutiny and it would have integrity. But we're seeing anything but that so far. You only need to take a look at the inquiry that went into this fair work bill that the government is currently debating. There's a lack of transparency—a lack of scrutiny. They only allowed 22 days for stakeholders to present their concerns and their issues about the bill that is before this parliament—22 days to consider such a significant change to the Fair Work Act. This is absolutely outrageous. The government are not prepared to open themselves up to scrutiny—because if you did then you would find there were all sorts of holes, and that's what we're finding in the committee stage of that bill. But here we have a situation where we have requested that details of diaries be revealed, be tabled, so that members of parliament can scrutinise whereabouts and with who various ministers are engaging. The Prime Minister has not provided his diary, so that the Australian people can have a look and so that this parliament can have a look at what is going on. This is very disappointing, and it's a very concerning precedent that's being set here. Even the leader of the government in this place is not making her diary available. I look forward to it being available. I've got no doubt that Senator Wong is engaging in some very important issues in her portfolio. Why not open it up? Why not fulfil the obligation that they have to be transparent and honest with the Australian people? We asked some questions about the cost of living, and we had some—would you call them answers, colleagues? I'm not sure that they were really answers, because they were just ducking and weaving around the reality. We heard time and time again—over 90 times throughout the election campaign alone—that this government was going to tackle energy prices. They were going to in fact reduce the cost of energy by $275 for the Australian people. It was promised to the Australian people that that would happen, but it hasn't. What we're seeing is that Australians are going to be worse off under this government—in fact, $2,000 worse off by the time we get to Christmas. In my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, I asked what the impact was going to be. Australians are buying their ham, their turkey and their bonbons and getting themselves ready for hosting a Christmas lunch with their family, which I'm sure they've been looking forward to for so long, because we know that last Christmas many families were apart and weren't able to get together. They're looking forward to getting together this Christmas. But what they're seeing when they go to the grocery store is that the cost of delivering Christmas this year has gone up, the cost of buying presents for the kids has gone up, because this government is not doing anything to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that is before us right now. Inflation is going up. Interest rates are going up. The cost of delivering Christmas is going up. I look forward to the responses of those opposite, who might be able to rebut what I'm saying—but there's not. There's nothing that they can say, there's nothing that they can point to that would demonstrate that they're actually doing something to address this cost-of-living crisis. I want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas. I hope that you do get to celebrate and have a great time with your family, and I hope you do get to enjoy a lovely Christmas lunch with them, because I know many Australians last year didn't get to enjoy that. I hope they get that chance, even though it's costing them more. 15:13 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Seriously, give the man a bucket and a hanky! Seriously? The crocodile tears are just beyond humour. It is beyond humour, because that side want to come in here and give us a lecture on transparency! Transparency? I'm still waiting to see Mr Joyce's report from when he was the envoy for whatever he was the envoy for, that he was paid enormous amounts of money for, that nobody has still been able to see. I'm still waiting to see the reports that you don't give us. And what else have we got? Let's talk about transparency from the other side. First of all, we've got the former Attorney-General. On that side, integrity— Senator Birmingham H6X You do know you won the election, don't you? Senato HZB I beg your pardon? Senator Birmingham H6X You're the government now. Senator BILYK HZB I do know we're the government. I know you lost the election. Do you know why you lost the election? Because people knew you were not up to the job. People knew that you didn't care about them. People knew you didn't care about the cost of living. The crocodile tears from over there, and we're spending hours in here because you won't support the industrial relations bill. You won't give low-paid workers a pay rise. You will not give the aged care workers a pay rise. You will not give the early childhood educators a pay rise. Your whole policy on pay rises was to keep wages low. And what do you have? Through you, Deputy President, I don't know if anyone in the gallery ever watched that show To the Manor Born. That's what we have got over there. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Through me, Senator Bilyk, not the gallery. Senator BILYK HZB I did say through you. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I know, but you were talking to the gallery. Senator BILYK HZB Through you, Deputy President, I will say to those over there, you've watched too much To the Manor Born. You think you are to the manor born. You want to keep wages low. You want to keep people down. Don't come in here and tell us that people won't be able to afford Christmas. We know that because we're cleaning up 10 years of your mess. Ten years of you guys deliberately keeping wages lower. Ten years of you denying low-paid workers an increase. Do you think people are fooled by that? I have early childhood educators in my office, or in my office in Hobart, probably at least twice a month. And I'll tell you, they do not like you guys. I'm quite happy for them not to like you guys. They know that you are blocking this wage rise for them. They know that it is you that are trying to hold Australia back. I've got less than two minutes left and I do want to say something nice at the end. You are the guys that had colour coded spreadsheets. Where is the transparency in that? Don't come in here and talk complete rubbish. People outside this building know you're talking rubbish. They know that it's just a ploy to try and cover up because you're all in denial over there. I don't know how many times—I don't know why you don't put your hands up like this every time someone says, 'Wasn't our fault. We don't have to take responsibility because now you're the government.' Guess what? You spent 10 years buggering up the community, buggering up Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Bilyk, please don't use that term. I find it offensive. Senator BILYK HZB I'm sorry, Deputy President. I withdraw that. I apologise wholeheartedly. You spent 10 years screwing the people of Australia— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'm not sure that's much better. Senator BILYK HZB Come on! I've heard all sorts of things in this building. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, I'm well aware. I can look after myself, thank you. Senator BILYK HZB Oh, for heaven's sake. Senator Henderson ZN4 I would ask the senator opposite to withdraw that really most offensive word. Senator Bilyk HZB I did withdraw it. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 On a point of order, Chair. I can think of much worse descriptors than the one the senator used. I think it was entirely in context. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We all haven't lived as worldly lives as you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator BILYK HZB I'm happy to withdraw everything that was offensive to the people on that side. I'd hate to offend you. You've offended the people of Australia for the last nine years. But if I can't say that, fine, I'm happy to take the ruling from the Deputy President. We have been working hard in the past six months that we've been in government, and what have we been doing? Do you want to hear what we've done? Let me start. We've been building a modern economy. We're not living in the 1950s, like those on that side want to. We have been protecting the vulnerable. We have been rebuilding our international relationships, because we know what happened to international relationships from your side. 15:19 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania To paraphrase a great film from the early noughties, why are you so obsessed with us? All we have heard today from those in the government is their own views on what happened when we were in government. There weren't many constructive ideas at all coming from members of the government today. I think that's really disappointing. We are seven months into this government now, into this new parliament, and the broken promises are starting to stack up. The problems are out there. Australians are under the pump. We have a government that promised one thing in May, and, at best, they do something entirely different, and, at worst, they don't even address the problem to start with. During the election campaign, and while the now government was in opposition, Labor promised on multiple occasions that they would fix the rising cost of living. They said they had a plan. They promised that they would reduce inflation. They promised that they would help Australians get household budgets under control. They promised that the average Australian could expect to see a $275 reduction in their power bills. And they promised that they would be a transparent and accountable government. It all sounded so easy, and they promised an easy fix. But it turns out that governing the country isn't as easy as some of those opposite expected. Maybe that's why they come into this place and, instead of talking about what they should be doing, they just talk about their perceived issues with the previous government. Right now, under Anthony Albanese and Labor, we have an economy with high inflation, rapidly rising interest rates and skyrocketing costs of living. But their dismal economic management and failure to deliver what they promised doesn't stop there. Like I said, Labor have also abandoned their promise to reduce household electricity prices for Australians, a promise which they said would save the average Australian $275 on their power bill. Senator Scarr 282997 How many times did they say it? Senator Birmingham H6X Ninety-seven. Senator CHANDLER 264449 Thank you, Senator Birmingham and Senator Scarr, for the interjections there. This late in a sitting week I didn't have the number quite front of mind. But the number I did have front of mind is 275, because that's how many dollars they said your electricity bill was going to go down by. Instead of making savings for households, the government has been forced to make an embarrassing admission that, over the next two years, Australians can expect to see electricity prices go up by 56 per cent. People voted for Mr Albanese and Labor based off this promise. The question is: what is Labor going to do about it? The fact is: they do not have a plan. That is why we saw this behaviour from the government today. They will talk as much as they like about the last nine years and their various views on our government, but, six months in, they can't focus on the issues that are important to Australians. Not even Labor state governments believe that the Albanese government has a plan that's going to work, let alone a plan that's going to deliver that $275 promise. I was looking through the Financial Review yesterday and I read that the South Australian government was appealing to the federal energy minister not to do anything stupid. Well, it's a bit late for that. Most people would say that promising every Australian household that their power bills would go down by hundreds of dollars, to win an election, and then announcing in your first budget that bills will actually be going up by hundreds of dollars is a fairly stupid thing to do. The Albanese government's plan to put a cap on gas prices faces a new roadblock, with the South Australian government joining industry warnings that it could deter investment in new gas supply developments. That was the report in the Fin yesterday. This came on the same day that the Queensland Labor government told the Albanese government to keep its hands off their generators. Not even Labor governments trust other Labor governments to bring down power prices. The dishonesty that was on display by the Labor Party earlier this year when they promised Australians they would lower the cost of living is extraordinary. When they promised Australians they'd get a $275 cut to their power bills, millions of people believed them. They believed them when they said that they were going to be a government that was about transparency and accountability, and yet this week, in this place, they tried to take days out of our Senate estimates sitting schedule for next year. You can't be much less interested in transparency and accountability than that—taking away the ability of this chamber to scrutinise the decisions of government. Instead of a $275 cut, Labor brought out a budget promising Australian households a 56 per cent hike to their power bills, and now we are seeing Labor state governments fighting with the federal government about these very same issues. It's not good enough. Six months in, it's a pretty disappointing result for the government. 15:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Well, the opposition's lack of transparency has followed them right into opposition and into this question time. They failed to nail the government at all when they raised these issues, because we have been very fair and transparent in our commitments to the Australian people. But if we look even at how the opposition asked their questions today, when Senator Cadell said to Senator Wong, 'I refer to your secret modelling that demonstrates that there will be coalmining closures as a result of your policies', then lo and behold, what do we find? Those very coalmines were forecast to close and their closure announced under the last government. So, far from being attributable to the Labor Party's policy commitments and indeed the commitments we have made to the Australian people, those job losses were forecast under the opposition's policy settings from when they were in government—the opposition's complete lack, frankly, of policy settings, as we've heard many times in this place. We saw under the last government some 22 energy policies in the time they were in government. When we talk about our commitment to preventing job losses on the road to net zero we're serious about it. That's why we do this modelling—so we can see the impact of our policies on local employment markets and so we can work out where to stimulate in order to mitigate any changes in those local job markets in order to prevent those job losses. We've also had from those opposite today a debate about cost of living. Well, one of the key contributors to cost of living in this nation has of course been electricity prices, gas prices, things you didn't do anything about in your absolute lack of policy clarity on those questions—again, a mess that we in government are now left to clean up. Those opposite like to lambaste us for our reduction target for emissions, and we've talked about the Hunter and other coalmining precincts. Well, we're proud to be a government that is currently working with the government of New South Wales, a Liberal government. They have a reduction target to get to a 50 per cent reduction by 2030. Are you blaming them for this landscape? Are you making accusations of them that attributes job losses to them? Well, no, because we know that these reduction policies are both good for our environment and good for the economy. They're not easy transitions to make. They have complex adjustments for economies and communities that we need to be smart and organised about. But the economic modelling and indeed the historical record, when you look at things like the short time that we had the carbon reduction scheme in place, or if you look at the success of existing renewable energy technologies that are widely used in Australia and their costings, demonstrate that our modelling and our commitments absolutely stack up. We are a government that wants to look after workers, because we care about the cost of living. We are here today in this chamber spending most of the day debating industrial relations laws that will empower workers and workplaces to work with their employers to improve productivity and increase wages and conditions where they're deserved. 15:29 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It has only been four weeks since the Labor government's first budget and that budget wasn't so much about their own figures but it had a shocking impact on the budgets of average Australian families. In that budget it was revealed that energy prices for Australian families in the next two years are set to skyrocket by 56 per cent. There has been massive community outrage at this, especially given that only six months before the government had promised to actually cut people's power bills by $275. Since then, in the past four weeks, the government has flown more kites than you'd see on a windy beach. Every day there is a new kite being flown about what they're going to do about energy prices. This is despite them saying that they had planned six months ago to actually deal with them. I've only just been speaking to some major energy companies this morning, here in this place, and they're shaking their heads. They're shaking their heads at this government because they have no idea what they're going to do. Every day, basically, they wake up, they read the paper and they read about the latest battles that are going on with this divided government—this government with no direction—about how they're going to get people's energy bills down. I think it's important to go through the absolute rabble that this government has been over the past month. On 28 October 2022 on the New Daily website there was a story which said, 'Labor refuses to rule out gas export cap'. It said this: Former competition watchdog boss Rod Sims has suggested the government threaten gas providers with export limits to try to lower Australian prices. Energy Minister Chris Bowen didn't rule out such as drastic move when asked about it on Friday morning. So that's on the table. They have no idea if there's going to be a gas export cap and we still don't know. Then on 26 October, the Australian reported in a headline, 'Windfall levy and changes to GST ruled out': Jim Chalmers has ruled out changes to the GST or hitting gas exporters with a windfall profits tax … Only about two weeks later after the Treasurer, nonetheless, had ruled out a windfall profits tax, the Australian reported on its front page, on 11 November, under the headline 'Labor risks new row with miners over coal and gas tax', that Anthony Albanese had not ruled out a new tax on gas and coal to help ease energy prices for households and businesses, and had said that the government is 'working through the issue'. I wonder if Mr Albanese had spoken to his Treasurer, who had ruled out such a tax just two weeks before? What the hell is going on with this government? Why can't they keep things in order? We are talking about extremely serious matters which they are messing around with because they have no idea what they're doing. A few weeks on, by 29 November, there was a story in the Australian where they had come up with a new idea, 'Anthony Albanese's fix for electricity bills: direct subsidies for homes, businesses'. This was the third energy plan in just a few weeks. It was floated this week. Also, on the same day—on the very same day—the ABC reported that the government was to cap wholesale gas prices as part of a market intervention to lower power prices. So that was a record: they had two energy policies on the same day, which were briefed out to different newspapers. No-one has any idea what they're doing, let alone themselves. They have no idea what they're doing here. They made promises; in the words of Maverick, they tried to cash cheques that their body couldn't keep six months ago at the election. They said they could cut our power bills by $275, but when they got to government they had no idea how to do this. Instead, we're facing skyrocketing power bills ahead of Christmas this year. Well, once we leave this place, this government have to get their act together because the Australian people rely on it. They need to get some consistency into their energy policies, not this rabble that's going on and playing out in our nation's newspapers. They need to talk to these energy producers, they need to talk to the industrial customers and, most of all, they need to talk to the Australian people—and none of these weasel words, this corporatese that they've been using and which was said again by their leader today. He said that they're going to transition workers to new jobs. That means you're going to lose your job. People know that. When they hear the word 'transition' that means, 'I'm going to lose my job.' And if that's what you mean then you should just say it. It's a lot more trustworthy when you say that, because when you use words like 'transition', you sound like a second-rate HR manager at a large business. You sound like the character from the Dilbert cartoon, Catbert. You're all a bunch of Catberts over there when you use words like 'transition' instead of speaking plainly to the Australian people. If I know anything about coal miners in this country, they don't take kindly to the rubbish and the BS that sometimes comes from this other mob. Just speak the truth to us and be honest. Question agreed to. Climate Change 66 15:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a question without notice I asked today relating to climate change and loss and damage. I also note that Senator Whish-Wilson will take part of my time. In 1991, Vanuatu, on behalf of small island states, first asked this question: who will pay for climate catastrophe? Over the next three decades, wealthy nations of the Global North dodged and deflected that question while they continued to fuel the climate crisis. They relentlessly pursued profit and power and put the world on track for climate catastrophe and disasters. These disasters have affected 33 million people in Pakistan; 50 million people in the Horn of Africa face the threat of famine; and the climate crisis is an extensional threat to the Pacific nations. After decades of pushing by the Global South, a loss and damage fund has finally been agreed to, and New Zealand, Denmark, Germany and Scotland have all committed to contributing, but Australia still refuses to commit its fair share to loss and damage funding. Today the climate change minister tabled his first annual climate change statement and mentioned the devastating floods in Pakistan as well as the climate risks faced by Indonesia and the Pacific islands. But it's simply not enough for the government to acknowledge these climate catastrophes and grave climate risks faced by countries of the Global South. It needs to stop pouring fuel on the fire. It beggars belief the climate change minister did not once mention the words 'coal' or 'gas'—not a single time. Honestly, what does the government think is causing the crisis in the first place? Strong and urgent action means no new coal and gas. It is untenable to keep sacrificing the lives and livelihoods of those in poorer nations to maintain the profit margins of fossil fuel conglomerates, many of whom fill political donation buckets for both the big parties. Climate change is a matter of global justice. Those who did nothing to create it are facing the first and worst consequences. Loss and damage funding is about compensation and a debt owed for the terrible legacy of extractivisim and colonialism by the Global North. It is not charity; it is about righting historic wrongs. Given Australia's dirty hands in producing carbon emissions, we have a special responsibility to do everything we can for climate justice. Australia needs to use its diplomatic weight to push for the loss and damage fund to be set up urgently and take the lead by unequivocally committing to loss and damage funding and pay its fair share. That's what real climate leadership on the global stage looks like. That's what listening to our Pacific neighbours looks like. That's what global justice demands of us. 15:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Not only has the government not answered Senator Faruqi's question on climate change today; they have also not complied with an order of the Senate to provide critical details on their formal response to the IUCN and UNESCO reactive monitoring mission report, which they were happy to release earlier this week. They seem to be very big on rhetoric and very light on detail. Minister Plibersek has sat on this report for at least three months. She very craftily put the response out this week, nicely massaged, given to favourite media outlets—we know how it all works. No doubt she also spoke to stakeholders and gave them a sneak preview of it. We hear the response from the government. Of course the report wasn't what they wanted to hear. The IUCN and UNESCO committee recommended that the Great Barrier Reef should be put on the 'in danger' list because its outstanding universal values are going to be severely impacted by climate change. It recommended that the government meet its Paris protocols. Why doesn't the government comply with the order of the Senate and provide its official explanation to UNESCO? Did the government say they were going to meet their Paris targets? We know they have legislated a climate target in this place—with no detail or plan for how they will meet it, by the way—that well exceeds our Paris commitments. We know they don't have a plan for that. Where is that detail? What else did they say to UNESCO? Did they say it's unfair that the Barrier Reef has been singled out amongst all the world's coral reefs that are suffering because of warming oceans caused by the burning of fossil fuels? What kind of excuse is that, to say the Barrier Reef shouldn't be singled out? We should be showing leadership and saying that's why the reef should be put on the endangered list, so we can all take action right around the world and understand the gravity of the situation we and future generations are facing. Question agreed to. NOTICES 67 NOTICES Presentation 67 Presentation 67 15:40 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Pursuant to notice given on 30 November 2022, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5, for four sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) (Hawking of Financial Products) Regulations 2021. COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 67 Report 67 15:41 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the eighth report for 2022 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 8 OF 2022 1 December 2022 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Tammy Tyrrell Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 8 OF 2022 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 30 November 2022 at 7.13 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (Abolishing Indexation and Raising the Minimum Repayment Income for Education and Training Loans) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 April 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 March 2023; and (d) the provisions of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 March 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021 Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2] Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 1 December 2022 Appendix 1 Name of Bill: Education and Other Legislation Amendment (Abolishing Indexation and Raising the Minimum Repayment Income for Education and Training Loans) Bill 2022 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complex bill, High degree of public interest Poss ible submissions or evidence from: Education and Employment Leg Committee Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committees Possible hearing date(s): Jan—March 2023 Possible reporting date: 17 April 2023 (signed) Nick McKim Append ix 2 Name of Bill: National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Setting up and funding the National Reconstruction Fund is designed to revitalise Australian industry. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation (NRFC) Bill will: establish the NRFC as a new corporate Commonwealth entity; establish the NRFC's independent Board; outline the NRFC's functions and powers, including its investment functions and powers; set out financial, personnel and governance arrangements; and establish the power for responsible Ministers (the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance) to issue an Investment Mandate to guide the investment strategy of the NRFC and declare the priority areas of the Australian economy. The NRFC will assist Australian industry, including in regional areas, to seize new growth opportunities by providing finance for projects that add value, improve productivity and support transformation rather than enabling expansion of business as usual. Investment in these activities will help create secure, high value jobs for Australians and strengthen our future prosperity. The NRFC will be able to use a range of financial instruments, including loans, guarantees and equity. Possible submissions or evidence from: Business Council of Australia Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry COSBOA ACTU Manufacturing Australia Law Council of Australia Australian Banking Association Australian Investment Council Financial Services Council Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Week of 19 December or 30 January Possible reporting date: 9 February (signed) Anne Urquhart Appendix 3 Name of Bill: Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To inquire into the provisions of the Bill Possible submissions or evidence from: Entities who submitted to the Department's exposure draft of the Bill. https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/safeguard-mechanism-reform-consultation Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Possible hearing date(s): Late January 2023 Possible reporting date: 17 February 2023 (signed) Anne Urquhart Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 15:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 February 2023". 15:41 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move to amend the government's amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "but, in respect of the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2023". 15:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On Senator McKim's amendment: I know it's only a very short difference, but we would prefer 24 February in preference to Senator McKim's amendment because the time frame for this inquiry wouldn't allow for the bill to be considered by the Senate in time for it to be operational in line with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It would miss that March sitting week, which means we wouldn't be able to implement the laws in line with the NACC. That's the reason we want to push it back, so it can be considered in March. 15:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We've heard the government's ask. We want to make sure this is done properly. We're only asking for an extra week; we are prepared to do that. After six years of argy-bargy on this, making sure it's right for an extra week is not too hard an ask. Question agreed to. 15:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Can we record that the government voted no to this amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 So recorded. This question now is the amendment to the motion, moved by the minister, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. NOTICES 70 NOTICES Postponement 70 COMMITTEES 71 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 71 Reporting Date 71 15:44 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Community Affairs References Committee 71 Reference 71 15:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 June 2023: Concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports at all levels, for all genders and age groups, with particular reference to: (a) the guidelines and practices contact sports associations and clubs follow in cases of player concussions and repeated head trauma, including practices undermining recovery periods and potential risk disclosure; (b) the long-term impacts of concussions and repeated head trauma, including but not limited to mental, physical, social and professional impacts; (c) the long and short-term support available to players affected by concussion and repeated head trauma; (d) the liability of contact sports associations and clubs for long-term impacts of player concussions and repeated head trauma; (e) the role of sports associations and clubs in the debate around concussion and repeated head trauma, including in financing research; (f) the lack of a consistent definition of what constitutes 'concussion'; (g) the prevalence, monitoring and reporting of concussion and long-term impacts of concussion and repeated head trauma, including in First Nations communities; (h) workers, or other, compensation mechanisms for players affected by longterm impacts of concussions and repeated head trauma; (i) alternative approaches to concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sport, and awareness raising about its risks; (j) international experiences in modifying sports for children; and (k) any other related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Child Care 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:45 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 8 December 2022, any modelling, costing or analysis that has been conducted by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Education in relation to modifications to and/or the removal of the Child Care Subsidy activity test since 1 January 2022. 15:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing this motion. I just remind Senator Faruqi that there is the Parliamentary Budget Office, which was established to inform the parliament by providing independent, non-partisan analysis of budget cycle fiscal policy and financial implications of proposals, and that that could be used to provide the information she seeks. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 113 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 44 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, once the vote has started, once I've appointed tellers, no senator is to move. Bracknell Community Hall Grant Award 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That— (a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 3 February 2023, the following documents: (i) the application/s made by Meander Valley Council (Tasmania) in respect of the community development grant award GA171062 (Bracknell Community Hall Upgrade), (ii) any assessments of the grant application/s for GA171062, (iii) any grant agreement in respect of grant award GA171062, (iv) any payment schedule for the grant award GA171062, (v) any progress reports, ad hoc reports and completion report submitted in respect of grant award GA171062, (vi) any financial declaration and audited financial acquittal report submitted in respect of grant award GA171062, (vii) any grant agreement variation submitted in respect of grant award GA171062, (viii) any record of compliance visits in respect of grant award GA171062, (ix) any evaluation/s completed in respect of grant award GA171062, and (x) any correspondence between the applicant and the then Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts in respect of the grant award; and (b) 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. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 15:55 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move general business notice of motions Nos 115 to 118 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 115 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 10 am on Thursday, 8 December 2022, all correspondence, emails, briefings, notes, meeting agendas and minutes and other records of interactions between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts and the Northern Territory Government concerning the use of the term 'petrochemicals' in relation to the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 116 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 8 December 2022, all correspondence, emails, briefings, notes, meeting agendas and minutes, and other records of interactions between the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Northern Territory Government concerning the use of the term 'petrochemicals' in relation to the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 117 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 8 December 2022, all correspondence, emails, briefings, notes, meeting agendas and minutes, and other records of interactions between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Northern Territory Government concerning the use of the term 'petrochemicals' in relation to the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 118 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 8 December 2022, all correspondence, emails, briefings, notes, meeting agendas and minutes, and other records of interactions between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Northern Territory Government concerning the use of the term 'petrochemicals' in relation to the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion Nos 115 to 118 standing in the name of Senator Cox be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. 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. 41 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Coalmining Industry 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I, and also on behalf of Senator McDonald, move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5.30 pm on Thursday, 1 December 2022, the full report which is titled 'Estimated impacts of CFPS (coal-fired power station) and associated coal mine closures', dated October 2022, and any related documents from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. Notice of motion altered on 30 November 2022 pursuant to standing order 77. I hope the government does the right thing. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 119 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie be agreed to.    

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

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

Question negatived.

BUSINESS 75 BUSINESS Consideration Of Legislation 75 16:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That— (a) after consideration of the Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 has concluded, the questions on all remaining stages of the Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 only be put without debate; and (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.    

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

 36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. 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. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Foreign Interference through Social Media Select Committee 76 Membership 76 16:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have received letters nominating senators to be members of committees. 16:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: Australia's Disaster Resilience — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Davey, Grogan, Reynolds, Sheldon and Shoebridge Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Bilyk, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Dodson, Duniam, Fawcett, Green, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payman, Payne, Polley, Pratt, Rennick, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Van, Walsh and White Economics Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Allman-Payne to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 Participating member: Senator McKim Foreign Interference through Social Media — Select Committee — Appointed— Senator Hanson-Young Participating members: Senators Hanson and Roberts Question agreed to. BILLS 76 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 76

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022

First Reading 76 16:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 76 16:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2022 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2022 This Bill delivers for the Australian people. From enhancing a digital games industry to supporting our veterans, this Bill delivers. From boosting small business to being a significant step in the Government's plan to reduce Australia's emissions, this Bill delivers. I am also pleased to announce that the Albanese Government will overhaul transparency requirements for superannuation funds so that members can access clearer, more meaningful, and more consistent information about their fund. The Government is committed to strengthening Australia's world-class superannuation system to maximise returns so that all Australians can retire with dignity. A transparent system with consistently reported data is central to this outcome so that members have meaningful information to hold trustees to account and make accurate comparisons between funds on performance, fees and expenditure. I want to take this opportunity to outline the Government's three part plan to deliver a genuinely transparent superannuation system that is member-centric Today is part one, introducing legislation aligning super funds' financial and accounting reporting obligations with those on public companies. This includes filing annual, publicly-available financial reports with ASIC. Part two is a new annual Superannuation Transparency Report to be delivered by APRA. This will be a single source of granular, consistent information for members to compare performance and expenditure. Part three is reforming existing rules so every reporting stream serves a distinct purpose, eliminating duplication and enhancing clarity: Annual Reports, APRA Transparency Reports, and annual member meetings—all aligned and ensuring members, regulators and the public have access to relevant information. Our world-class $3.3 billion superannuation system is something every Australian should be proud of. But we should always look for ways to strengthen it. This Bill begins that process by embracing transparency and accountability. Schedule 1 to the Bill establishes the Digital Games Tax Offset (DGTO). For the first time, Australia will have a dedicated tax offset that supports the emerging digital games sector. The DGTO is a 30% refundable tax offset for eligible companies that develop eligible games and spend a minimum of $500,000 on qualifying Australian development expenditure from 1 July 2022. The new offset is estimated to increase payments by a total of $38.4 million over four years from 2021-22. All entertainment and educational games are eligible for the DGTO, provided they can receive a classification rating from the Australian Classifications Board, are broadly available to the general public, and they do not involve gambling-like activities. The DGTO will strengthen the Australian digital games industry, expand employment opportunities for digital and creative talent, enhance the industry's international competitiveness and make Australia more attractive for foreign investment. Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the tax law to clarify that digital currencies (such as bitcoin) continue to be excluded from being treated as a foreign currency for Australian income tax purposes. This legislation maintains the status quo. Clarification in the legislation is necessary following a decision by El Salvador to recognise bitcoin as unrestricted legal tender from 7 September 2021. This introduced uncertainty about the status of bitcoin and similar digital currencies for Australian income tax purposes which the legislation addresses Schedule 3 to the Bill provides the Commissioner of Taxation with the power to allow employers to rely on existing corporate records, rather than employee declarations and other prescribed records, to finalise their fringe benefits tax (FBT) returns. This will reduce compliance costs for employers, while maintaining the integrity of the FBT system. Schedule 4 to the Bill introduces the Skills and Training boost to support small businesses to train and upskill employees. Small businesses with annual turnover less than $50 million will have access to a bonus 20% deduction for eligible expenditure on external training of employees. This measure is being legislated to build a better trained and more productive workforce, helping to address skills shortages. The Skills and Training boost will be available until 30 June 2024. Schedule 5 to the Bill introduces the Technology investment boost to support small businesses to improve their digital capacity which will allow them to enhance productivity and business growth. Small businesses will have access to a bonus 20% tax deduction for eligible expenditure of up to $100,000 per income year to support their digital operations, until 30 June 2023. Schedule 6 to the Bill extends and adapts financial reporting auditing requirements which apply to registrable superannuation entities (RSEs). Australia's superannuation system manages over $3.3 trillion in retirement savings on behalf of around 16 million people. Given the superannuation system's size and compulsory nature, every Australian should expect the highest level of accountability and transparency from their superannuation fund. This measure seeks to ensure that the transparency, regulatory oversight and rigorous standards for the reporting of superannuation fund financial information meet these expectations. The new financial reporting requirements require RSEs to lodge financial reports with ASIC, and that these are publicly available. The new requirements will also impose stricter requirements for auditors of RSEs. This includes imposing additional reporting and independence obligations for audit firms and audit companies. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the measure as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Schedule 7 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Australian Education Research Organisation Limited, Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd, Melbourne Business School Limited, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Ltd, Leaders Institute of South Australia Incorporated, and St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund, on the list of deductible gift recipients. The Schedule extends the current listings for Sydney Chevra Kadisha and Australian Women Donors Network. It also removes the listing for Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Limited. DGR status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the gifts to the listed organisations. Schedule 8 to the Bill makes amendments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporations Act 2012. The Government's $20 billion Rewiring the Nation election commitment will modernise Australia's electricity grids, lower the cost of electricity bills for consumers, help manage the electricity system, and increase renewables in the grid. This measure is a significant step in the Government's plan to reduce Australia's emissions by 43% on 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. This will have the potential to accelerate Australia's transition to net zero emissions by 2050. Schedule 9 to the Bill will ensure that veterans affected by the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Douglas will not face worse income tax outcomes as a result of the Court's decision. The legislation will preserve the preferable tax and outcomes for affected veterans as a result of the decision. To do this, this measure introduces a new non-refundable tax offset for members of the Military Superannuation and Benefits (MSB) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) schemes that ensures that individuals who would face adverse tax outcomes as a result of the Court's decision will not pay higher taxes on their superannuation invalidity benefit. This offset will also apply to Spouse and Children's pensions paid to a spouse or child following the death of a member of a scheme affected by the Douglas decision. This measure will also ensure that any benefits that the Douglas decision may apply to beyond the MSB and DFRDB benefits, will continue to be taxed as superannuation income streams, by amending the legislative definition of superannuation income streams. The measure also includes a transitional provision to ensure that certain non-military invalidity benefits that received lump sum status prior to the Douglas decision are not disturbed by this reversal, while the Government considers the appropriate future treatment of these pensions. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2022 MEASURES NO. 5) BILL 2022 The Australian Government has set the goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030. We are committed to working collaboratively with donors and the charity sector to achieve this goal. Deductible gift recipient status allows people to receive income tax deductions for gifts to those organisations. This is a mechanism to encourage philanthropy and to provide support to the not-for-profit sector. Organisations can obtain deductible gift recipient status under the general categories set out in Division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 or by being specifically listed by name in that Division. This Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Australian Education Research Organisation Limited, Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd, Melbourne Business School Limited, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Ltd, Leaders Institute of South Australia Incorporated, and St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund, on the list of deductible gift recipients. The Bill extends the current listings for Sydney Chevra Kadisha and Australian Women Donors Network. It also removes the listing for Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Limited as it is no longer required. Under the general categories in the tax law, the eight organisations contained in this Bill were not eligible to receive deductible gift recipient status. As such, the Bill will amend the tax law to specifically list them by name. This supports these organisations by encouraging more Australians to support them. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022, Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022, Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 79

Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022

Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

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

Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Assent 79 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 79

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

In Committee 79 16:17 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The committee is considering the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, and government amendments (1) to (68) on sheet PV124 moved by Senator Watt. The question is that government amendments (1) to (34), (36) to (62) and (64) to (68) be agreed to. 16:17 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Madam Chair, I ask that the question be put. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the question be put. Question agreed to. The CHAIR: The question is that government amendments (1) to (34), (36) to (62) and (64) to (68) moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.     The CHAIR (16:27): The question before the chair is that items 584 and 667 of schedule 1 stand as printed.     The CHAIR (16:30): Honourable senators, I have a statement in relation to opposition amendments on sheets 1704 to 1711. The government amendments on sheet PV124 included amendments to the definition of 'small business' for certain purposes. Amendments (45), (50) and (56) changed the size of small businesses to 20 employees. As those amendments have been agreed to, the series of amendments circulated by Senator Cash that also seek to change the size of small businesses are contrary to standing order 118(2). That standing order provides: No … amendment shall be proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee, or which is inconsistent with one that has been agreed to by the committee, unless a recommittal of the bill has intervened. As such, it is not in order for those amendments to be moved.

The committee divided. [16:22]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 31 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The committee divided. [16:27]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Chair, am I allowed to make a statement in relation to this? The CHAIR: Well, we're in committee, so, Senator Cash, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M Thank you very much. In relation to the statement that you have just made, let me be very clear to this place: I disagree with it. The reason I disagree with it is this: we are moving amendments to protect small and medium businesses in Australia from being compelled to bargain against their will in circumstances that they have never asked for. Chair, with all due respect, if you are telling me there is not a difference between a small business that has 20 employees and a business that has 200, I'm going to call you out and say you are wrong. If you are telling me that there is no difference between a small business in Australia that has 20 employees and one that has 175, I'll tell you you are wrong. If you are telling me there is no difference between a small business in Australia that has 20 employees and one that has 150 employees, again, Chair, you are wrong. If you are telling me that there is no difference between a small business in Australia and a business that has 125 employees, I am telling you you are wrong. If you are telling me there is no difference between a small business in Australia and a business that has 100 employees, I am telling you you are wrong. The CHAIR: Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM On a point of order, Chair, I just seek your guidance in terms of Senator Cash's direct criticism of a ruling that you have just made—and, if I might add, a complete mischaracterisation of what you've just said. It is my understanding that is well out of order, and I ask you for a ruling on that, please. The CHAIR: I was allowing Senator Cash to make a contribution, but I have made the ruling. The ruling was made on the advice of the Clerk, and my characterisation of Senator Cash's contribution is consistent with yours, in that it's a criticism of my ruling. My ruling stands. Senator Cash, the ruling is in relation to the application of the standing orders. It doesn't apply to the actual amendment to the definition itself, which is what your contribution entails. The standing order says that you cannot make further amendments when an amendment has already been agreed to, in that the will of the Committee of the Whole has already been declared or articulated by the committee, and therefore to criticise the ruling is to criticise the decision of the Committee of the Whole. I'm prepared to give you the call again, but, if you wish to continue down the line you're taking, I will not give you the call. 16:34 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): Thank you, Chair. What I will say is this: this is, without a doubt, one of the greatest travesties that businesses in Australia will ever face. The difference, quite frankly, between a business with 20 employees and a business with 21 employees is material to this debate. Why? Because a business with 20 or fewer is now excluded from the single stream of multi-employer bargaining. They can, yes, be compelled into the supported stream and they will face costs set out in the government's regulatory impact statement of around $14½ thousand. But you see, Chair, with this ruling, which I respectfully disagree with, a business with but one more employee will now face costs of in excess of $80,000 per business. Colleagues, I remind you that in the regulatory impact statement it was $75½ thousand until during the committee stage when, amazingly, we were able to pick up that—and I quote the Minister of the Small Business, such is her contempt for small business—'the $5,000 was merely a typo'. That $5,000 means that businesses in Australia, according to the ruling that has been made, with 21 or more employees will now still be roped into—are able to be compelled into—the changes to the single-interest multi-employer bargaining stream against their will. Potentially, they will be bargaining with their competitors. The costs are set out clearly in the regulatory impact statement: $75½ thousand plus the small typo of $5,000. So to every business in Australia: this bill is going to pass and it's going to pass very soon. But let me be very, very clear on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Susan Ley, and on behalf of every member of the Liberal and National parties in this place and in the other: we will never stop defending you. We will stand by you every single step of the way. The fact is that this ruling says, quite frankly, there is no difference. I say shame on the ruling, quite frankly! Shame on Labor and your contempt for small business and business in Australia— The CHAIR: Senator Cash, your criticisms of me are totally out of order! Senator CASH I0M I'm criticising the ruling. The CHAIR: I ask you to withdraw them. Senator CASH I0M I withdraw, Chair. I am merely criticising the fact that, with this ruling, we are unable now to stand up for businesses in Australia with 200, 175, 150, 100, 75, 50 or 25 employees. On behalf of all Liberals and Nationals across Australia, the fight doesn't stop. We've got your back and we'll stand up for you every day of the week. The CHAIR: Senator Pocock, you have the call. Senator Barbara Pocock BFQ Which one? I was first on my feet! The CHAIR: Sorry, I apologise! I'll allow you to arbitrate between the two of you. 16:38 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Thank you, Chair, and thank you to David Pocock for gracefully allowing me to go first. The Greens are supporting the government's amendments. There are many elements in this bill that take our labour law into the 21st century. They address the real work circumstances of Australians and they promise to end the fall in real wages which means that so many Australians right now are struggling to be other than working poor. They work in poverty, despite getting a wage. Their wages have not lifted for 10 years and it's time to fix our labour law. It's time to improve justice for the millions of women who can't predict their hours tomorrow or next week and the millions of workers who have become insecure and who live insecurely, with consequences for their children and their families. It's time to fix our labour law and to make it address the real circumstances that affect millions of Australians, the flexibilities that they need to put together for a job and care of their kids or the care of a parent. We need to increase the wages of the low-paid, the people who are looking after our kids, people in our aged-care sector and in our disability care. We need to narrow the gender pay gap which, for 30 years—and certainly for the last 10—has not seen a narrowing. We need to support more fairly the one in two workers now in our labour market who are women. Some of the warriors in this place are fighting the industrial relations battles of last century. I've heard, today and last night, lines that we would've heard over successive struggles over industrial relations. It's time to move forward so that our labour law addresses the real issues affecting real Australians in their millions outside this place. I want to specifically say something about the amendments which protect the better off overall test and put in place protections to prevent low-paid workers from going backwards. The government's original bill attempted to remove prospective employees from being considered under the better off overall test when agreements were approved. The Greens were concerned that this would have left some workers worse off. After negotiations with the government, we're pleased to see these amendments. These amendments will further ensure that future employees will be covered by the agreement that's considered by the Fair Work Commission when they're assessing an agreement against that better off overall test. The amendments also clarify that when applying the better off overall test and considering potential work patterns of current or future employees, the Fair Work Commission will have to assess any work patterns that the employer, union or employee considers reasonably foreseeable, with the Fair Work Commission having regard to the kind of business the employer is running. The bill establishes a new reconsideration process which allows employers, employees or unions to have agreements reconsidered against the better off overall test. These amendments will mean that if the Fair Work Commission changes an agreement because workers are worse off those changes can be applied retrospectively, allowing workers to have their pay backdated to the time of the agreement. These amendments are an important win for workers, especially low-paid workers in retail and hospitality. So many of them are young people, so many of them are without very much power in the labour market. The better off overall test and its essential, important features has been preserved. Hence, for this, and many other reasons, which we will get to talk about this afternoon—and we will get to them—the Greens will be supporting this set of amendments. And we have supported them. By leave—I would now like to move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1776: (1) Clause 2, page 5 (after table item 32A), insert: (2) Schedule 1, page 250 (after line 5), after Part 25A, insert: Part 25B — Unpaid parental leave Division 1 — Main amendments Fair Work Act 2009 659C Paragraphs 72(3)(b) and (4)(b) Omit "or 76", substitute "or 76A". 659D Subsection 72A(5) Omit "section 76", substitute "section 76A". 659E Subsections 76(3) to (5A) Repeal the subsections. 659F Subsection 76(6) Omit "under this section", substitute "requested under this section". 659G After section 76 Insert: 76A Responding to requests for extension of unpaid parental leave Responding to the request (1) If, under subsection 76(1), an employee requests an employer to agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a further period of up to 12 months immediately following the end of the available parental leave period, the employer must give the employee a written response to the request within 21 days. (2) The response must: (a) state that the employer grants the request; or (b) if, following discussion between the employer and the employee, the employer and the employee agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a period that differs from the period requested—set out the agreed extended period; or (c) subject to subsection (3)—state that the employer refuses the request and include the matters required by subsection (6). (3) The employer may refuse the request only if: (a) the employer has: (i) discussed the request with the employee; and (ii) genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employee about an extension of the period of unpaid parental leave for the employee; and (b) the employer and the employee have not reached such an agreement; and (c) the employer has had regard to the consequences of the refusal for the employee; and (d) the refusal is on reasonable business grounds. Note: An employer's grounds for refusing a request may be taken to be reasonable business grounds, or not to be reasonable business grounds, in certain circumstances (see subsection 76C(6)). (4) To avoid doubt, subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) does not require the employer to agree to an extension of the period of unpaid parental leave for the employee if the employer would have reasonable business grounds for refusing a request for the extension. Reasonable business grounds for refusing requests (5) Without limiting what are reasonable business grounds for the purposes of paragraph (3)(d) and subsection (4), reasonable business grounds for refusing a request include the following: (a) that the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee would be too costly for the employer; (b) that there is no capacity to change the working arrangements of other employees to accommodate the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee; (c) that it would be impractical to change the working arrangements of other employees, or recruit new employees, to accommodate the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee; (d) that the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee would be likely to result in a significant loss in efficiency or productivity; (e) that the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee would be likely to have a significant negative impact on customer service. Note: The specific circumstances of the employer, including the nature and size of the enterprise carried on by the employer, are relevant to whether the employer has reasonable business grounds for refusing a request for the purposes of paragraph (3)(d) and subsection (4). For example, if the employer has only a small number of employees, there may be no capacity to change the working arrangements of other employees to accommodate the request (see paragraph (5)(b)). Employer must explain grounds for refusal (6) If the employer refuses the request, the written response under subsection (1) must: (a) include details of the reasons for the refusal; and (b) without limiting paragraph (a) of this subsection: (i) set out the employer's particular business grounds for refusing the request; and (ii) explain how those grounds apply to the request; and (c) either: (i) set out the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave for the employee (other than the period requested by the employee) that the employer would be willing to agree to; or (ii) state that there is no extension of the period that the employer would be willing to agree to; and (d) set out the effect of sections 76B and 76C. Genuinely trying to reach an agreement (7) This section does not affect, and is not affected by, the meaning of the expression "genuinely trying to reach an agreement", or any variant of the expression, as used elsewhere in this Act. Division 2 — Civi l remedies and dispute resolution Fair Work Act 2009 659H Subsection 44(1) Omit "(1)". 659J Subsection 44(1) (note) Omit "subsection", substitute "section". 659K Subsection 44(2) Repeal the subsection (including the notes). 659L Before section 77 Insert: 76B Disputes about extension of period of unpaid parental leave Application of this section (1) This section applies to a dispute between an employer and an employee that relates to a request by the employee to the employer under subsection 76(1) to agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a further period of up to 12 months immediately following the end of the available parental leave period if: (a) the employer has refused the request; or (b) 21 days have passed since the employee made the request, and the employer has not given the employee a written response to the request under section 76A. Note 1: Modern awards and enterprise agreements must include a term that provides a procedure for settling disputes in relation to the National Employment Standards (see paragraph 146(b) and subsection 186(6)). Note 2: Subsection 55(4) permits inclusion of terms that are ancillary or incidental to, or that supplement, the National Employment Standards. However, a term of a modern award or an enterprise agreement has no effect to the extent it contravenes section 55 (see section 56). Resolving disputes (2) In the first instance, the parties to the dispute must attempt to resolve the dispute at the workplace level, by discussions between the parties. FWC may deal with disputes (3) If discussions at the workplace level do not resolve the dispute, a party to the dispute may refer the dispute to the FWC. (4) If a dispute is referred under subsection (3): (a) the FWC must first deal with the dispute by means other than arbitration, unless there are exceptional circumstances; and (b) the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration in accordance with section 76C. Note: For the purposes of paragraph (a), the FWC may deal with the dispute as it considers appropriate. The FWC commonly deals with disputes by conciliation. The FWC may also deal with the dispute by mediation, making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)). Representatives (5) The employer or employee may appoint a person or industrial association to provide the employer or employee (as the case may be) with support or representation for the purposes of: (a) resolving the dispute; or (b) the FWC dealing with the dispute. Note: A person may be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the FWC only with the permission of the FWC (see section 596). 76C Arbitration (1) For the purposes of paragraph 76B(4)(b), the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration by making any of the following orders: (a) if the employer has not given the employee a written response to the request under section 76A—an order that the employer be taken to have refused the request; (b) if the employer refused the request: (i) an order that it would be appropriate for the grounds on which the employer refused the request to be taken to have been reasonable business grounds; or (ii) an order that it would be appropriate for the grounds on which the employer refused the request to be taken not to have been reasonable business grounds; (c) if the FWC is satisfied that the employer has not responded, or has not responded adequately, to the employee's request under section 76A—an order that the employer take such further steps as the FWC considers appropriate, having regard to the matters in section 76A; (d) subject to subsection (4) of this section: (i) an order that the employer grant the request; or (ii) an order that the employer agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a further period of up to 12 months (other than the period requested by the employee) immediately following the end of the available parental leave period. Note: An order by the FWC under paragraph (c) could, for example, require the employer to give a response, or further response, to the employee's request, and could set out matters that must be included in the response or further response. (2) In making an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take into account fairness between the employer and the employee. (3) The FWC must not make an order under paragraph (1)(c) or (d) that would be inconsistent with: (a) a provision of this Act; or (b) a term of a fair work instrument (other than an order made under that paragraph) that, immediately before the order is made, applies to the employer and employee. (4) The FWC may make an order under paragraph (1)(d) only if the FWC is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the dispute being resolved without the making of such an order. (5) If the FWC makes an order under paragraph (1)(a), the employer is taken to have refused the request. (6) If the FWC makes an order under paragraph (1)(b), the grounds on which the employer refuses the request are taken: (a) for an order made under subparagraph (1)(b)(i)—to be reasonable business grounds; or (b) for an order made under subparagraph (1)(b)(ii)—not to be reasonable business grounds. Contravening an order under subsection (1) (7) A person must not contravene a term of an order made under subsection (1). Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1). 659M Section 146 (note) Repeal the note. 659N Subsection 186(6) (notes 1 and 2) Repeal the notes. 659P Subsection 539(2) (table item 1, column 1) Omit "44(1)", substitute "44". 659Q Subsection 539(2) ( after table item 5AA) Insert: 659R Subsection 539(2) (table item 34, column 1) Omit "745(1)", substitute "745". 659S Subsection 545(1) (note 4) Repeal the note, substitute: Note 4: There are limitations on orders that can be made in relation to contraventions of subsection 463(1) or (2) (which deals with protected action ballot orders) (see subsection 463(3)). 659T Paragraph 557(2)(a) Omit "subsection 44(1)", substitute "section 44". 659U Paragraph 557(2)(p) Omit "subsection 745(1)", substitute "section 745". 659V Paragraph 557C(3)(a) Omit "subsection 44(1)", substitute "section 44". 659W Paragraph 558B(7)(a) Omit "subsection 44(1)", substitute "section 44". 659X After paragraph 675(2)(aa) Insert: (ab) an order under subsection 76C(1) (which deals with the extension of periods of unpaid parental leave); 659Y Subsection 739(2) Repeal the subsection. 659Z Subsection 740(2) Repeal the subsection. 659ZA Subsection 745(1) Omit "(1)". 659ZB Subsection 745(1) (note 1) Omit "subsection", substitute "section". 659ZC Subsection 745(2) Repeal the subsection (including the note). (3) Schedule 1, item 660, page 263 (after line 15), at the end of Part 13, add: Division 20 — Amendments made by Part 25B of Schedule 1 to the amending Act 85 Requests for extension of period of unpaid parental leave The amendments made by Part 25B of Schedule 1 to the amending Act apply in relation to a request made under subsection 76(1) of this Act on or after the commencement of that Part. These amendments will allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with employers who unfairly deny workers a request for an extension to unpaid parental leave. This will support parents to take the time they need to care for their child. Prior to this bill being introduced only two of the 11 National Employment Standards—that's the right to request flexibility and the right to ask for an extension of unpaid parental leave—did not have an enforcement mechanism. What do you call a labour law without enforcement? It's a failed gesture. And it especially affects women. So it's telling that those two mechanisms with the most important impacts for women haven't had enforcement—and now must. We are going to correct that with this amendment. I'm pleased to see that Labor have listened to the Greens and included an enforcement mechanism in this bill for the right to request flexibility. That is a really significant step forward for the millions of people who want to work a different day, or they want to change their start or finish time—simple things that make such a difference to them as they put together the care for someone else and a job. We also need an enforcement mechanism for employers who unfairly deny requests for an extension to unpaid parental leave. This is a really important thing for those who really need it. Their child is sick. Their plans haven't worked out on parental leave. They can't get child care. This will allow them to get some backup when they seek an extension to their unpaid parental leave. We know we need to increase paid leave. We are so far from the international standard of 52 weeks of paid leave and we need to move towards that as soon as we can. But this measure will back up those who need an increase in their unpaid leave now. It makes no sense to leave only one of the 11 National Employment Standards without an enforcement mechanism, so I'm delighted to move this amendment which will make a real difference to the lives of many Australians. 16:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Barbara Pocock, for that contribution. The government will be supporting these amendments. There are only two entitlements in the National Employment Standards that are unenforceable—the right to request a flexible working arrangement and the right to request an extension of unpaid parental leave. These entitlements are predominantly used by women. I also thank Senator Pocock for pointing out that the bill was already providing dispute resolution for one of these entitlements, flexible work. We support this amendment and also provide dispute resolution for the right to request unpaid parental leave as well. 16:45 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the question be put. Question agreed to. 16:45 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 287062 The question now is that Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1776, moved by Senator Barbara Pocock, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 16:45 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1780 and amendment (1) on sheet 1781, circulated in my name, together: SHEET 1780 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 1), omit "3", substitute "4". (2) Page 6 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must: (a) consider whether the operation of the amendments made by this Act is appropriate and effective; and (b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by this Act; and (c) consider whether amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009,or any other legislation, are necessary to: (i) improve the operation of the amendments made by this Act; or (ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b). (3) The review must start no later than 2 years after this section commences. (4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. SHEET 1781 (1) Schedule 1, item 543, page 183 (line 20) to page 184 (line 3), omit subsection 235(5), substitute: End of the minimum bargaining period (5) The end of the minimum bargaining period in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement is: (a) if one or more enterprise agreements (the existing agreements) apply to any of the employees that will be covered by the proposed agreement—the later of the following: (i) the day that is 9 months after the nominal expiry date for that existing agreement, or the latest nominal expiry date for those existing agreements; (ii) the day that is 9 months after the day bargaining starts, as worked out under subsection (6); or (b) the day that is 9 months after the day bargaining starts, as worked out under subsection (6). (6) For the purposes of subparagraph (5)(a)(ii) and paragraph (5)(b), the day bargaining starts for a proposed agreement is: (a) if a supported bargaining authorisation or single interest employer authorisation is in operation in relation to the proposed agreement—the day that the authorisation first comes into operation; or (b) otherwise—the notification time for the proposed agreement. The amendments on Sheet 1780 ensure that there will be a statutory review no later than two years after the commencement of the legislation. The review will look at, among other things, whether the operation of the amendments made by this act is appropriate and effective and identify any unintended consequences of the amendment made by this act and whether amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 or any other legislation are necessary to improve the operation of the amendments made by this act or rectify any unintended consequences identified. The persons who conduct the review must give the minister a written report of the review within six months of the commencement of the review, and the minister must then table a copy of the report within 15 sitting days. The amendment on sheet 1781 effectively extends the grace period from six months to nine months by altering the minimum bargaining period. This was something that came up repeatedly in the committee process. 16:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition will not be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment requiring a review to commence after two years of the legislation coming into force. This amendment then gives six months before the review needs to be completed and a further 15 sitting days before it needs to be tabled. Given where we'll be in the electoral cycle, this amendment will essentially mean that it will be at least 2.5 years—possibly three years or longer—before any review is actually completed and tabled in the parliament. The extreme changes being proposed by the government, which will pass this chamber shortly, need to be reviewed independently and much sooner, given the significant ramifications that this bill could have on Australian workplaces and the Australian economy. Most concerningly, this amendment doesn't even say that the review should be independent. There's nothing stopping the minister from getting his own department or one of his friends to conduct a review of the legislation and literally say glowing things which are not true. So we would argue, Senator Pocock, that it should be an independent review. I understand you've also moved your amendment on sheet 1781, by leave, together. In relation to sheet 1781, the coalition will not be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment, which requires that the minimum bargaining period increase from six months to nine months. The amendment does nothing to make what is an incredibly bad bill any better. Businesses will still be forced to bargain against their own will, potentially with their competitors. This amendment will undoubtedly only lead to the words of businesses across Australia ringing true: more strikes and less jobs. 16:49 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia The Greens will be supporting this amendment because it will make it less likely that arbitration could be misused by employers who want to remove hard-won conditions and wages. If employers disagree with the term of an expired enterprise agreement, the Greens are worried they could act in bad faith by simply refusing to negotiate and then roll the dice and hope the commission arbitrates in their favour. The government has gone a long way to removing employers' terminating agreements as a bargaining tactic to undermine existing conditions, something we fully support. While the Greens have been able to secure some changes to help prevent employers undermining existing conditions, we flag this concern and we will be paying close attention to ensure the arbitration provisions do not get abused by employers. This is something the statutory review, which we also support, needs to pay close attention to. The CHAIR: The question before the committee of the whole is that the amendments on sheet 1780 and 1781 as moved by Senator D Pocock be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [16:55]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:58 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia by leave—I move amendment numbers 1-7 on sheet 1761 together: (1) Schedule 1, Divisions 1 and 2, page 130 (line 2) to page 131 (line 17), omit the Divisions, substitute: Division 1 — Requests for flexible working arrangements Fair Work Act 2009 446 Subsections 65(1), (1A) and (1B) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) If an employee would like to change his or her working arrangements, the employee may request the employer for a change in working arrangements. Note: Examples of changes in working arrangements include changes in hours of work, changes in patterns of work and changes in location of work. (2) Schedule 1, item 459, page 132 (lines 4 and 5), omit "relating to circumstances that apply to the employee". (3) Schedule 1, item 459, page 132 (lines 20 and 21), omit "to accommodate the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)". (4) Schedule 1, item 459, page 133 (lines 34 to 36), omit "that would accommodate, to any extent, the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) and". (5) Schedule 1, item 463, page 134 (lines 25 and 26), omit "relating to circumstances that apply to the employee". (6) Schedule 1, item 463, page 136 (lines 25 and 26), omit "to accommodate, to any extent, the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 65B(1)(a)". (7) Schedule 1, Part 11, page 138 (after line 9), at the end of the Part, add: Division 5 — Positive duty for flexible working arrangements Fair Work Act 2009 469AA After paragraph 336(1)(c) Insert: (ca) to protect the ability of persons to balance work and family responsibilities, and in doing so to promote gender equality; 469AB After section 351 Insert: 351A Positive duty to ensure flexible working arrangements are made available Positive duty (1) An employer must take reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that, as far as possible, flexible working arrangements are made available to the employees of the employer to assist them to balance their work and family responsibilities. Note: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1). (2) The following matters are to be taken into account in determining whether an employer complies with subsection (1): (a) the size, nature and circumstances of the employer's business or undertaking; (b) the employer's resources, whether financial or otherwise; (c) the practicability and the cost of making flexible working arrangements available; (d) whether the employer has complied with any guidelines prepared and published by the FWC under subsection (3); (e) any other relevant matter. FWC guidelines (3) The FWC has the function to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the FWC considers appropriate, guidelines for complying with subsection (1). (4) In performing its functions under subsection (3), the FWC must have regard to: (a) the need for guidelines to be available in multiple languages; and (b) the cultural diversity of Australian workplaces. Positive duty additional to requirements und er Division 4 of Part 2-2 (5) To avoid doubt, the requirement in subsection (1) applies in addition to the requirements in Division 4 of Part 2-2 (requests for flexible working arrangements). 469AC Subsection 539(2) (cell at table item 11, column 1) After "351(1)", insert: 351A(1) This amendment does two things. It widens the eligibility for the right to request flexibility, and it establishes a positive duty in favour of creating flexible workplace in Australia. It's 2022. Flexibility should be available to all employees, not just those with narrowly defined family responsibilities. It's only when seeking flexibility is something 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 duties as a consequence. Wider eligibility for flexibility has been adopted in the UK, based on clear evidence about its value. Guess what? The sky has not fallen. The second part of this amendment establishes a positive duty to create flexible workplaces. A modern workplace should create an environment that actively anticipates and responds to the needs of its workers and doesn't require individuals to have to push for it one by one individually, too often at risk of job security. So many employers already do this, talking to employees. This amendment will encourage others to create that positive flexible environment. The CHAIR: I'm now going to put the question. The question before the committee is that Greens amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1761 as moved by Senator Barbara Pocock be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [17:01]
(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. 39 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:04 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3), on sheet 1758, together: (1) Clause 2, page 5 (after table item 32A), insert: (2) Schedule 1, page 250 (after line 5), after Part 25A, insert: Part 25B — Minimum wage Fair Work Act 2009 659C Section 12 Insert: median national hourly wage means the median weekly total cash earnings for all full-time employees paid at the adult rate of pay, most recently published by the Australian Statistician, divided by 38. 659D After subsection 294(1) Insert: (1A) The monetary amount per hour produced by the national minimum wage must at least equal 60% of the median national hourly wage. Note: The national minimum wage must be expressed in a way that produces a monetary amount per hour (see section 295). (3) Schedule 1, Part 26, page 263 (after line 15), after Division 19, insert: Division 20 — Amendments made by Part 25B of Schedule 1 to the amending Act 85 Definitions In this Division: phase in period: see paragraph 87(1)(a). 86 Application of amendments — national minimum wage orders Orders that come into o peration after phase in period (1) Subsection 294(1A) (as inserted by the amending Act) applies in relation to a national minimum wage order that comes into operation after the end of the phase in period. Orders made and that come into operation during pha se in period (2) If a national minimum wage order is made, and comes into operation, during the phase in period, the national minimum wage set by the order must reflect the phase in referred to in subclause 87(1). (3) Subclause (2) does not apply to the national minimum wage set by a national minimum wage order, if: (a) FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the phase in, in relation to that particular national minimum wage order; and (b) the national minimum wage order includes the FWC's reasons for the departure. 87 FWC must phase in increases in national minimum wage FWC must determine rate of phase in (1) In the first national minimum wage order that comes into operation after the commencement of the amending Act, the FWC must set out: (a) the period (the phase in period) during which the effect of any increases in the national minimum wage that will be required because of subsection 294(1A) (as inserted by the amending Act) are to be phased in; and (b) the rate of the phase in during that period. (2) The phase in period must end no later than 6 years after the commencement of the amending Act. (3) In determining the rate of the phase in, FWC must have regard to the following matters: (a) the need to reduce inequality; (b) the state of the economy; (c) the circumstances of particular industries and classes of employers; (d) any other matters the FWC considers relevant. Special rules if a national minimum wage order is made shortly before commencement (4) If the first national minimum wage order that is to come into operation after the commencement of the amending Act is made before that commencement, the FWC must, after that commencement and before the national minimum wage order comes into operation, make a determination varying the order so that the order complies with subclauses (1) to (3). (5) To avoid doubt, subclause (4) applies despite paragraph 296(3)(a). Note: Paragraph 296(3)(a) restricts the grounds on which a national minimum wage order can be varied. (6) A determination made in accordance with subclause (4): (a) comes into operation immediately after the order as unvaried comes into operation; and (b) takes effect at the same time as the order. (7) The following provisions apply to a determination made in accordance with subclause (4) as if the determination was made under Part 2-6: (a) subsection 296(2) (publication requirements); (b) subsection 617(3) (determination must be made by Expert Panel). 88 Application of amendments — ot her Commonwealth laws (1) This clause applies in relation to a payment if: (a) the payment is of a kind that is payable by the Commonwealth under a law of the Commonwealth (other than this Act); and (b) the law requires the payment to be calculated (however described) by reference to the national minimum wage set by a national minimum wage order. Note: A kind of payment to which subclause (1) applies may be a kind of payment that is also payable by persons other than the Commonwealth (for example, parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010). (2) A national minimum wage set by a national minimum wage order that comes into operation after the commencement of the amending Act does not apply for the purposes of the calculation of the payment. (3) Subclause (2) does not apply if the payment is prescribed by the regulations. These amendments would enshrine in law a new minimum wage—a living wage. The rising cost of housing, energy, food and everyday essentials, combined with low wage growth, means that many working people are living in poverty. In a rich country like Australia, people earning the minimum wage shouldn't be struggling to make ends meet. These amendments lift the national minimum wage to a living wage, which we define, like many other countries, as 60 per cent of the median full-time weekly wage, as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The amendments will allow the Fair Work Commission to determine the phase-in period and the amounts for this increase, which should be no longer than six years. The Fair Work Commission must have regard in these amendments to matters including: reducing inequality; the state of the economy; and the circumstances of particular industries and classes of employers. The Greens recognise the government's intention to lift wages through this bill, and that's to be applauded and it's long overdue, but we believe we need to lift the floor of the minimum wage so workers aren't in poverty and inequality narrows. 17:06 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. Original question negatived. 17:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (1) to (8), on sheet 1768, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 426, page 116 (before line 10), before the definition of gender identity, insert: COVID-19 vaccination status means the status of a person relating to whether, and to what extent, the person has been vaccinated against the coronavirus known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that virus). (2) Schedule 1, item 427, page 116 (line 17), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". (3) Schedule 1, item 429, page 117 (line 3), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". (4) Schedule 1, item 432, page 118 (line 3), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". (5) Schedule 1, page 118 (after line 3), after item 432, insert: 432A Paragraph 351(2)(a) Before "not unlawful", insert "for action taken other than because of a person's COVID-19 vaccination status—". (6) Schedule 1, item 433, page 118 (line 6), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". (7) Schedule 1, item 436, page 118 (line 23), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". (8) Schedule 1, item 437, page 119 (line 23), omit "or intersex status,", substitute ", intersex status or COVID-19 vaccination status". In proposing this bill, the government says the bill aims to secure jobs. My amendments on sheet 1768 go to the heart of ensuring job security and protecting workers' rights. To ensure job security, my amendments on sheet 1768 ensure that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment. The original bill inserts breastfeeding, intersex status and gender identity as attributes that the Fair Work Act protects from discrimination. These amendments copy that approach and simply add COVID-19 vaccination as an attribute protected from discrimination. The protection is still subject to the limits imposed on the other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act. An employer, for example, will not be in breach of the antidiscrimination grounds where the employer can prove, as they should have to, that it is a genuine and reasonable requirement of the position. These amendments are reasonable. In their approach, they are not radical because they use and simply extend the existing mechanisms in the Fair Work Act. We've long known that COVID vaccines do not stop transmission. Before this became apparent, getting vaccinated 'to protect others' was the justification many businesses used to roll out vaccine mandates that squashed people's jobs, livelihoods and careers. As a condition of keeping their job, many employees were coerced—and still are being coerced—into receiving COVID vaccinations and boosters they do not want. These vaccine mandates cannot be justified, given the fact vaccines do not guarantee protection from transmission. The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission recently agreed with this view, with workers' compensation being awarded for psychological distress stemming from the mandates in the determination of Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education), handed down on 3 November. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, yet we are happy that judicial bodies are taking up this self-evident position that broad vaccination mandates cannot be justified. Despite this, mandates are still in effect across the private sector. It's clear that further legislative action needs to be taken. Businesses are simply ignoring the evidence against unjustified vaccine mandates. A clear message needs to be sent that unreasonable directions that infringe on workers' rights have no place in Australian workplaces. Often, mandates do not even account for Australians who have accepted medical contra-indications to vaccination. The Australian newspaper reports that Qantas sacked a pilot for failing to comply with a vaccination mandate while he was off work, in a serious condition, being treated for bowel cancer. Separately, I have met with a Qantas employee, who after being injected with the first COVID injection, was rushed to hospital with severe, possibly life-threatening, disability due to the COVID injection. After hospital care and partial recovery, he returned to work, where Qantas insisted he get the second injection. He contested it and is now on vastly reduced pay on workers compensation. He fears his career with Qantas is finished That is discrimination. This amendment seeks to reinforce workers' rights to refuse a workplace direction where it is not a reasonable and justified requirement of the job. It leaves no doubt for employees and employers that vaccine mandates must not be in place unless there is a reasonable and justifiable need for them. Minister, given that businesses continue to ignore workers' rights in this area, will the government support this amendment to reinforce the decisions of the Fair Work Commission and codify protections for workers against unreasonable workplace directions? 17:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No. 17:11 Senator 245212 Queensland CANAVAN () (): I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Roberts and indicate to the chamber that I will be supporting his amendments because I support workers' rights. A fundamental right of every Australian should be to earn a livelihood to support their family. That should be a basic right. In fact, it's a right we have signed up to in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One of the enshrined human rights that we as a country have signed up to is the right to work to provide for your family. With the introduction of vaccine mandates last year, we denied that right to thousands of Australians who were thrown out onto the streets and had no way to provide for their families, in the short term at least. The mandates were never justifiable. Even I thought at the time that there was no evidence that the vaccine stopped transmission. Really, the only justification you could have to overturn and override that fundamental human right would be if somehow getting the vaccine protected a third party. I said at the time, and I'll say now that if we had a vaccine that could stop COVID in its tracks and prevent that death, I would consider some limitations on other rights. That's the way rights work. There is a right to life, as well. Sometimes we have to weigh these different human rights up. But if it wasn't apparent a year ago, it is clearly and starkly evident today that, for whatever the merits of the coronavirus vaccines, they do not stop transmission. Someone's else not having the vaccine is of no risk to you or anybody else in our society, and we know that now because we've largely got rid of mandates, in any case. They're gone, largely, but they are not completely removed. They still exist in the resources sector, where I come from in Central Queensland, where people have been locked out from their jobs because some companies have dug their heels in, if you like, and are maybe embarrassed to back down on the very strong stances they took a year ago that have proven to be wrong. We have an opportunity, when we're debating this type of legislation, to protect the rights of workers and to protect the rights of individual Australians to provide for their families. There can be no justification now to continue these mandates. Keep in mind, too, that even if you supported the mandates—I've never seen a mandate for a booster; I actually don't know. I think some health authorities might, but all of the mandates I've seen in private companies are for the original two shots. For anyone who took the original two shots on the timeline for most of us—that is, by late last year—they've already worn out. We know that from the science. The science says that, after 12 months—well, after six months really, but after 12 months definitely—there is no more impact of those first two shots. So, if you thought this was an issue or if these private companies thought there was a risk, why aren't they mandating the third shot—the booster—or a fourth shot? They're not doing that because they'd lose a lot of their workers if they did. These have no basis in science. All they are doing is hurting Australian families—admittedly fewer than last year. Thankfully, most of these mandates, as I say, have gone. The state governments have largely got rid of them in their laws, but there are still people being hurt by this. There are still people being harmed by it. They have no justification. I will once again stand up for the right of all Australian workers to make decisions about their health care when it doesn't affect the health of others. 17:15 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I want to make some brief comments in support of this, and I thank Senator Roberts for bringing this important amendment to the chamber. To add to Senator Canavan's comments on the subject: I think this is a topic which has picked up some acceleration over the last period. We're not in December 2021 anymore. A lot of the stuff we actually did know at this time last year—or that many of us knew—is now plainly evident. And as Senator Canavan said, the science is now settled on this issue. Transmission of the COVID virus is not affected by the use of these therapies. They are experimental therapies, and, at the end of the day, people have to accept that. I know there's a degree of cynicism in this room and there has been a period of 12 to 18 months of name-calling—antivax and this, that and the other—but the reality is that people have been forced into a very difficult decision over the past 12 to 18 months in order to keep their livelihood or take a risk on this therapy, and that has been wrong. What we have seen in the last two years, in my view, is one of the greatest scandals in Australian history—certainly in Australian medical history. This parliament and this Senate need to take the opportunity now to support this amendment—I support this amendment—and allow people the opportunity to return to work without the fear of losing their job because of a medical choice. There is no risk to the public. We have got private companies that are still engaging in this, and we need to set the tone here now. We hear a lot about the party of the workers: the Australian Labor Party. Let me tell you: the trade union movement bailed out on Australian workers on this issue. Senator Canavan 245212 CFMMEU did. Senator ANTIC 269375 Well, that's true. It would be very interesting to be where I'm standing in defence of the CFMMEU, but, in any event, that is a very fair point and I'll take that from Senator Canavan. But there are workers out there. If you'd seen the emails that come through my office and no doubt Senator Rennick's office on a daily basis—surely there is some humanity left in this place. It's time for us to support this. I support it and I ask that others do. 17:17 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Here we are at the end of 2022, and we've had over 10 million cases of COVID. The Australian health department, of course, stopped counting around September sometime because, I think, it was getting too embarrassing to admit that, despite over 20 million people having been vaccinated, over half the country had caught COVID. Whatever happened to protecting you? But we don't want to talk about that anymore. We'll just pull it off the website and we'll not discuss it. Then we've got the excess deaths that Senator Babet talked about before. We had 8,706 extra deaths last year, despite the fact that New South Wales locked down for three months. So, in theory, the deaths should have been lower, like they were in 2020, but let's not count 2021 in the ABS figures—sorry, it's 2020 they're not counting. Let's pretend nothing happened there. There were almost 140,000 jab injuries—more than all the injuries reported from vaccines since 1971 and more than all the injuries put together. You've got an injury rate that's three times higher, yet the TGA don't want to look at the signal. The whole point of having a database where doctors report these injuries, where they tick the box 'suspected'—and, as the doctors say, they don't fill these forms out because they don't have the spare time. They don't have a lazy 20 or 30 minutes sitting around, filling these forms out, if someone fell off a bike. No, no—they're ticking these boxes because they believe that the vaccine caused the injury that they are reporting. Yet the TGA want to pretend that there's nothing to see here. And why wouldn't they? Professor Skerritt is head of an organisation that is funded by big pharma. If you want to talk about a conflict of interest, that's it. These guys have no idea what they are talking about. I asked Professor Brendan Murphy, who was the chief health officer at the time, whether or not he'd actually read the non-clinical report into the Pfizer vaccine. Guess what? He hadn't read it. Despite that, he had been saying for a couple of days prior to that that the spike protein wasn't in the blood. Had he read the report, he would have known that they never even tested the spike protein. And they would have also known that, when they did the animal trials, that the report said there was no difference in lung inflammation between the placebo group and the vaccinated group after nine days. There was not one skerrick of evidence that showed that that vaccine was effective. But did anyone in this chamber right here, right now, actually read that report? I bet not, but you all went out there and said it was safe and effective, when you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. Shame on you. Because the law in this country, in the Australian Immunisation Register, says, No. 1, you cannot be coerced into taking a vaccine, and, No. 2, you need to be properly informed about what is in the vaccine. You've got to dig very far to get to the bottom of this stuff, but that spike protein in the vaccine isn't even the same as the spike protein in the virus. No. They've actually changed one of the nucleotide and they've actually got a synthetic gene in the vaccine. They've added 17 nucleotides to the poly(A) tail, which is designed to make it last longer. It's designed to last longer. The mRNA in the trials was shown to last for up to nine days. The lipids were shown to last at least two days, and they stopped the trials. Despite the fact that it doubled— Senator RENNICK 283596 Listen to this, Senator Hanson-Young: despite the fact that the concentration of the lipids that are cationic would double in the ovaries from day one to day two, do you know what they did? They stopped the trial. They stopped the trial and they went and told everyone that it just stays at the site of injection. That was a blatant lie. If you want to talk about misinformation, go and check out page 44 of the Pfizer non-clinical trial report. It was released on the TGA FOI disclosure log 239-6. I've read it numerous times. Guess what, you should also read the top paragraph of page 8, that says, 'The study suggests that the spike protein can be either inserted into the membrane or secreted from the cell.' What does that tell you? I'll tell you what that tells you. It tells you that rather than killing the actual pathogen, which is what a normal vaccine would have done, this particular vaccine goes inside your cell, takes over the reproduction—the ribosomes, which are what produce the protein—and then starts producing more of the toxic substance. That is not the name of the game. You want to actually kill the virus; you do not want to reproduce it. And, of course, Brendan Murphy, the then chief health officer, claimed that there was nothing to worry about. He never read the document. Then we've got Professor Kelly. He came out and made the bold statement that it stops transmission. He was lying, because the FDA came out in December 2020 and said that there was no evidence that the vaccine stopped transmission. When I pressed him on it, there are no trials to show that there's any IgA in the mucosal system. You don't have to take my word for it. Go and speak to Robert Clancy, Australia's foremost immunologist and vaccinologist. He's retired. You can trust this guy. He's not on the take from big pharma or the big universities that aren't actually interested in research; they're just interested in lining their own pockets. Then, of course, we've got the vaccine injury scheme, which is just a joke. Today, and last night, and day after day for the last 15 months, I get contacted by people who have had their lives destroyed by this vaccine—a vaccine that the government said was safe and effective. And if isn't bad enough that these people—I'm looking at you people in this chamber here today—didn't read the documents, this took over someone else's body because it suited your narrative, your command-and-control narrative. You showed no humanity—no humanity. There are people out there who are not only injured; they have lost their jobs, and they cannot get medical support to help them. There are husbands and wives who had to quit their jobs to stay home and look after those people who are injured and are in an incredible amount of pain. Senator RENNICK 283596 The fact that you're interjecting, Senator Hanson-Young, just goes to show the type of person you are. The CHAIR: Senator Rennick! Senator RENNICK 283596 How dare you come into this chamber and start mocking the vaccine injured! The CHAIR: Senator Rennick, please sit down. Senator Waters 192970 My point of order: reflecting on another senator, as well as being odious and tedious. The CHAIR: Not the second part. Senator Rennick, just withdraw to the extent that you made an adverse inference. Senator RENNICK 283596 I withdraw. The fact is that the Greens Party can sit in that corner over there and mock and laugh at the vaccine injured. These people aren't antivaxxers. They believed what the government told them, as I did when I first came to this place. But I can tell you what: there's nothing but a cesspit of lies in this place. The fact is that the Greens Party think that they can just sit there and mock the injured. These people believed in the government. Senator RENNICK 283596 You want to talk about trust and transparency. Oh, yes, there's Senator Waters again, mocking and going, 'Come on.' Maybe you should pick up the phone. Maybe you people should pick up the phone and talk to some of these people who have been injured. When we go to the basis, the substance, of this act, the Fair Work Act, this is a public health issue. The idea that businesses in this country can be responsible for the transmission of an airborne virus is just as absurd as the billions of dollars that are getting wasted on the idea that you can control some tiny trace gas in the atmosphere. We are living in the land of the unicorn farmers and intellectual pygmies who are just chasing the impossible dream. Like Sancho Panza chasing the windmills, it is absurd. Yet we stand here today, almost three years after the virus broke out in China or whatever, and we still have these ridiculous mandates in so many places, particularly in private industry, which is what this amendment will address. They are still being coerced into getting a vaccine. I've literally had three messages in just the last hour about people who are losing their jobs, not in the health sector but in sectors that are outdoors—they have nothing to do. It is absurd, and it needs to stop, because the state of emergency, even at the state government level, has been retracted, yet these people here today do not want to grant people their autonomous right to control what goes into their bodies. And I might remind members of the LNP that one of our values is the dignity and worth of every individual. We don't believe in multi-patent bargaining, because we recognise that every business is unique, and we think that the employer and the employee should have the first right in deciding what's best for them. That is what we believe in. We believe in empowering individuals to make the decisions that suit their needs the best, and only the individual or the parent of the child can make that decision. But what we've got here today is typical command and control. We've got the Labor Party and the Greens protecting their own narrative that the government can save us. 'Govern me harder, Daddy!'—that is what these people believe in. Senator Hanson-Young I0U To stop this rubbish, I move: That the question be put. The C HAIR: The question before the committee is that the question be put.     The CHAIR (17:35): The question is that the amendments on sheet 1768 moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [17:32]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 6 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. McLachlan, A. L. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:37]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 6 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. McLachlan, A. L. Rennick, G. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 40 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 97

Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022

In Committee 97 17:41 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1764 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 1 Subsections 23(1A) and (1B) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1A) The Assembly has no power to make laws permitting or having the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing), or the assisting of a person to terminate the person's life, in circumstances where: (a) the person whose life is to be terminated is under 18 years of age; or (b) the euthanasia is performed or the assistance is provided solely on the ground that the person whose life is to be terminated has: (i) a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); or (ii) a mental impairment (within the meaning of the Criminal Code). (1B) Subsection (1A) does not limit the power of the Assembly to make laws with respect to: (a) the withdrawal or withholding of medical or surgical measures for prolonging the life of a patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and (b) medical treatment in the provision of palliative care to a dying patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and (c) the appointment of an agent by a patient who is authorised to make decisions about the withdrawal or withholding of treatment; and (d) the repealing of legal sanctions against attempted suicide. (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute: 2 Section 50A Repeal the section, substitute: 50A Law s concerning euthanasia (1) Subject to this section the power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws does not extend to the making of laws which permit or have the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing), or the assisting of a person to terminate the person's life, in circumstances where: (a) the person whose life is to be terminated is under 18 years of age; or (b) the euthanasia is performed or the assistance is provided solely on the ground that the person whose life is to be terminated has: (i) a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); or (ii) a mental impairment (within the meaning of the Criminal Code). (2) Subsection (1) does not limit the power of the Legislative Assembly to make laws with respect to: (a) the withdrawal or withholding of medical or surgical measures for prolonging the life of a patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and (b) medical treatment in the provision of palliative care to a dying patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and (c) the appointment of an agent by a patient who is authorised to make decisions about the withdrawal or withholding of treatment; and (d) the repealing of legal sanctions against attempted suicide. The purpose of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to remove the provisions currently preventing the territories from passing legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying. The bill would not legalise that in either of the territories but rather would allow the legislative assemblies of the ACT and the NT to pass laws allowing for VAD. Despite what the Labor Northern Territory and federal House of Representatives members have portrayed of me publicly, I do support the bill and am doing my job—which they should note how to better do themselves—in making a bad bill better for the Territory. I'll say this again: I absolutely support the rights of Territorians. The proposed amendments, drafted by the parliamentary clerk, have been developed to ensure that the exact restraints that are currently operative in state law are applied in the Territory, because we have some of the most vulnerable communities and people in Australia. For those who don't get to see what's going on up in the Northern Territory, in the last week police have disposed of 229 litres of alcohol, and 168 people have been taken into protective custody. The Northern Territory Labor government are too busy protecting their own parliamentary convicted paedophiles to protect life. Alcohol related crime and violence are out of control. The federal Labor members for Lingiari and Solomon should hang their heads in shame. Both have publicly called for the CLP to disendorse me because I'm doing my job in the Senate by making a bad bill better. They are misleading Territorians about my actions on this bill. Not supporting a bill in its current form and proposing amendments that already exist right across Australia is doing my job to scrutinise a bill for the betterment of Territorians. There seems to be so much unease about me speaking the truth on what's going on in the Northern Territory. In relation to this bill, no states across Australia allow access to assisted dying for those under the age of 18. This proposed amendment ensures that this applies in the Northern Territory. The New South Wales Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022, part 2, clause 16, states: (2) A person is not eligible for access to voluntary assisted dying merely because the person has— (a) a disability, or (b) dementia, or (c) a mental health impairment within the meaning of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020. Those with mental illness and those with disability can still access the schemes if they meet other criteria under state law. So, if it is so good for these other states, why is it not good enough for the territories? There are those that think this might be a radical reform. I can tell you now it's not a radical reform to ensure that children don't have access to voluntary assisted dying. This does occur in some Scandinavian countries, and in Canada a person with a mental health condition and disability can access their assisted suicide scheme even without a terminal condition. Why, you have to ask, does Senator Pocock oppose an amendment that provides additional safeguards for children, those with a disability and mental health conditions? Why is he seeking to erode protections for vulnerable persons in the territories? The Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 provisions state: (3) A person is not eligible for access to voluntary assisted dying only because the person has a disability, within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Disability Act 2006. In Victoria, voluntary assisted dying is only for people who are suffering from an incurable, advanced and progressive disease, illness or medical condition who are experiencing intolerable suffering. The condition must be assessed by two medical practitioners to be expected to cause death within six months. There is an exception for a person suffering from a neurodegenerative condition, where instead the condition must be expected to cause death within 12 months. Voluntary assisted dying is only available to Victorians who are over the age of 18, who have lived in Victoria for at least 12 months and who have decision-making capacity. To be eligible for voluntary assisted dying they must be experiencing suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person considers tolerable. In Victoria, mental illness or disability alone—which is what I have provided for in this amendment—are not grounds for access to voluntary assisted dying, but people who meet all other criteria and who have a disability or mental illness can still access the service. New South Wales was the last state to pass similar legislation. Some are not confident there are enough safeguards for people with mental health issues, so this is a lesson learnt—that the Australian government does have a responsibility to ensure vulnerable people are protected. The amendment is simply saying that you cannot solely—and I emphasise 'solely' because there are a number of measures that one must meet to be eligible—use the basis of having a disability, like autism, to access the provision of euthanasia or assisted dying. Again, I don't take my decisions lightly. I come from a part of this country where we have some of our most vulnerable Australians. There is often not enough education and consultation in this area, and I would ask that the Territory government—or whatever territory government decides to legislate for this—do the right thing and do the consultation to alleviate fears on the ground of vulnerable Aboriginal people that if they enter into a hospital and they are unwell they might be given a needle and killed. I can tell you now that there are vulnerable people who think this where I come from. There is a lot to consider with this bill, but my amendments are fairly straightforward, and I hope that I can get the support of my colleagues in this chamber—right through this chamber—for these amendments ensuring that our vulnerable people in the Northern Territory are protected. 17:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendment from Senator Nampijinpa Price, and I accept that you have not taken this decision lightly. I think it's been a very respectful debate in this place, and I'm sure that that will continue as we reach the final stages of this bill. Before I go to the amendment, I acknowledge in the chamber that we have in the gallery the Chief Minister of the ACT, Andrew Barr; Minister Tara Cheyne; and Marshall Perron, a former minister of the Northern Territory. Thank you for being here. You created history and in a sense set off the concertina of legislation that we are currently here trying to repeal this evening. I also acknowledge Andrew Denton and Dr Swan from Go Gentle who are here as well as some of the supporters of the reform and the repeal of this legislation and a friend of mine, Gina Pinkus, who has lobbied very strongly across the community for this legislation to be repealed. I'll go to the amendment. I think the senator who moved them identified the issue that we are trying to deal with here, which is that this parliament should not be the place where we are looking for safeguards or putting in place restrictions on the job that we are wanting the territory legislatures to have the power to do. So I am speaking against the amendment, because the bill that is before us is a repeal of a law which prevents those legislatures from determining this matter for themselves. That is the soul, single and only purpose of the legislation before us—to get rid of the constraint on those parliaments from being able to debate that themselves. I know and I accept that people feel very strongly about this and think the Commonwealth should have some control. I disagree with that, but also the way that this amendment is drafted is extremely broad. That we are trying to place restrictions, for example, on people with a disability, then that is a very broad definition. I think if this amendment was to pass it would render anything that the territory legislatures did ineffective. In a sense it is an anti-repeal amendment. I have no doubt it comes from a good place, but I am trying to explain to you that the bill that's before us tonight is about getting rid of constraints on the territory legislatures and leaving it to them to determine. When you look at the state jurisdictions that have put in voluntary assisted dying legislation, they have safeguards in place. They go through a process of consultation, they have ethics processes, they have oversight and they have safeguards, and it is appropriate that those legislatures do that job. Our job here tonight is to get rid of the constraint that exists in only two jurisdictions, the ACT and the Northern Territory, whose citizens are currently now not afforded the same rights as citizens of every other jurisdiction, and their parliaments are constrained. They are democratically elected parliaments, they are mature parliaments, they are held accountable by their communities and they face elections. It is more than reasonable that these parliaments be allowed to do this for themselves. So, on the grounds that the amendment effectively tries to anti-repeal a repeal bill, I won't be supporting it. But, even on the way the amendment is drafted, if it got up it would mean that those parliaments would in effect not be able to put in place a voluntary assisted dying regime, which is up to them whether they do that. Our job is to get out of the way and let them have the same legislative responsibilities and powers as the parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. 17:54 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to focus on a phrase Senator Gallagher used in the course of her remarks, and I think everyone listening to this debate needs to carefully reflect on this phrase, and it is 'the amendment is coming from a good place'—and it is coming from a good place. Senator Nampijinpa Price is showing a great deal of courage in moving these amendments and is doing so solely—solely—because she cares about the most vulnerable people in the Northern Territory. Every person listening to this debate should sincerely acknowledge and give respect to my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price for her stand in relation to this issue. And I dearly hope that when this debate is done and all of us in this place have respectfully put forward our comments that the position adopted in good faith—and sometimes it's very difficult to balance all the competing considerations in this regard—we can move on from this debate. The fact that different views are being expressed in the course of this debate in this chamber makes our democracy strong, and we should then move on and there should be no recriminations. There should be no looking back at the positions people have adopted in good faith. They should simply be respected. I want to make a few quick points about the amendment. The first is that as a Queensland senator I did read, in relation to the experience in the Northern Territory, and was deeply moved by—and I spoke about this during the second reading debate—an article written by Chips Mackinolty in relation to the laws that had previously been adopted by the Northern Territory. The title of that article is 'Right legislation: wrong jurisdiction?' Senator Dodson has referred to that article in the course of this debate. The fact of the matter is that the ACT is very different from the Northern Territory—extremely different, in many, many respects. I don't presume to stand in this place and say to the parliamentarians in the Northern Territory what they should or shouldn't do. But I have a responsibility as a senator in this place to consider those facts, and I think it is on the record that there are particular issues in relation to the Northern Territory. I dearly hope that whatever direction the Northern Territory takes it reflects on those previous experiences, which did cause me deep concern. In relation to the issue of disability, I previously raised the point that the United Nations Special Rapporteur in relation to the rights of the disabled has written to the Canadian government raising concerns about their legislation, about the availability of medically assisted dying for people with a disability. I've spoken about the experiences in Canada of people with a disability being approached in hospitals, even by an ethics manager, and being asked to reflect on the cost of their medical treatment. That causes me deep, deep concern, because I think Canada should be seen as an analogue for Australia—an advanced country with a system of human rights recognition. However, that is the reality. I heard the story of a veteran who was suffering from chronic depression ringing a helpline and being told that perhaps he could access medically assisted dying. I dearly hope we don't see those sorts of manifestations occurring in the Northern Territory, the ACT or any other jurisdiction in this country. But the reality is that there are issues with respect to how the law is being put into practice in Canada, and that's why I believe that these safeguards make sense. As Senator Nampijinpa Price has said, they're adopted in other states. I don't think it's particularly unclear, to be frank. I can see a difference between a person who suffers from an egregious illness like cancer et cetera and someone who has a disability. I can recognise that difference on the face of it. I sincerely do not believe that this amendment, these safeguards, would render any Northern Territory legislation nugatory. I simply don't believe that's the case. So I'm happy to rise and support my good friend Senator Nampijinpa Price, and I ask everyone to reflect on Senator Gallagher's words that this amendment comes from a good place. Once this debate is finished, I dearly hope we can just move forward. Thank you. 17:59 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I don't seek to detain the Senate long on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, because I know we still have a fair bit to get through tonight. Before I continue, I'll say what I said during my speech in the second reading debate: I do respect the way that the Senate has undertaken this debate—that goes for everyone, including what we just had there from Senator Scarr and from Senator Gallagher before him. Everyone has really engaged very respectfully in this debate, and I think that's a real credit to everyone here. I'm very proud to be a senator in this place, with people who are prepared to have a debate like this and with the kind of respect that has been shown. I support this amendment. In my second reading contribution I spoke about the concern that there are other jurisdictions around the world, like in Belgium, that allow for people with mental health issues to seek out euthanasia. The Netherlands has legislated to allow this for children—people under the age of 18. My concern is that we have been asked here with this bill to make a decision about what legislation will eventually be introduced into the Northern Territory and the ACT about assisted suicide. I feel that we're making a decision here when we actually don't know properly what the ramifications will be and what safeguards will be in place. These amendments go some of the way on this. Of course, this has really passed the second reading. This is about just putting up some rails so that we can be sure, as the Senate and as the parliament, that safeguards are in place to make sure that we don't allow laws that would enable children or indeed those who have mental health conditions to seek out these services. On that basis, I will vote for these amendments. 18:02 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I'd like to make a contribution to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I appreciate that it is unlikely to stop this, but I'd like to put this on the record. The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are so far apart, and not just in terms of distance. It is simplistic to think that the Restoring Territory Rights Bill is about territory rights. This bill only seeks to repeal sections of the act which deal with a single issue: medically assisted dying. The NT population is small, at 233,000, and 44 per cent of its citizens are Aboriginal. Thirty per cent of its population is regarded as 'just visiting'. Average individual income is $267 less than that in the ACT. Compare those figures to the ACT population at just over 454,000, two per cent of whom are Aboriginal. And 20 per cent have more tertiary education than those in the NT. The Northern Territory federal seat of Lingiari, which covers the NT except for Greater Darwin, has the highest proportion of Indigenous people of any electorate in the country, many of whom live in remote communities, and it has the lowest rate of voter enrolment in the nation. If the NT considers this, it is those people who will be poorly represented in the conversation. Illness and death visit Aboriginal people at uber alarming rates compared with other Australians. I've weighed up the fact that the need to protect the most vulnerable people is necessary. Those who will be impacted differently and disproportionately by this legislation, regardless of cultural, social or economic disadvantage, need greater protection. So I support this amendment. Legislation is one thing, but its implementation is quite another. I have considered, also, spending millions and millions on improving the high rate of early deaths of Aboriginal people—12 years less for men and 10 for women—only to offer those with multiple, complex chronic illnesses a legal way to bring about an early death. Remember, there is more death much earlier and with much more comorbidity caused by health issues like heart and kidney disease, diabetes, liver disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, cancer—these are major contributors in Aboriginal communities. This legislation will be significant for the people of the Northern Territory, and they need to have this explained to them to avoid fear and misinformation. I am a senator for South Australia but I was born, raised and still have land, family and community connections in the Northern Territory—in the towns, in remote communities and even in town camps. It is my lived understanding, not a textbook understanding, of these unintended consequences. These are very real issues. I refer to an assessment of the view of some Aboriginal communities in a study from 1996. Yes, it was some 26 years ago, but nothing of note has been done since. The results, though, couldn't have been clearer. Nine hundred people in 100 communities took part. The result was virtually unanimous; a statistically undeniable 99.7 per cent were against voluntary assisted death. That's almost every Indigenous person interviewed for this research being against it. Coercion is a very real issue in communities, a very real issue for those who experience it, and must be part of the conversation. This has been highlighted as a key issue in the lively debates about voluntary assisted death. I'm not talking about those who just harass, intimidate and silence; I'm talking about those who simply have busy lives and have difficulty with patience, attention and advocacy demanded of someone who is very ill and demanded of them when someone is very ill. We need to protect those vulnerable to the threat of coercion. I'm not alarmist to acknowledge that, should the NT move to legalise this, it will make vulnerable people even more vulnerable. Additional safeguards are needed, and they are needed in the Northern Territory. That's why I support this amendment. 18:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Firstly, I would like to echo the comments about the respectful way this debate has taken place in the Senate. This is a bill that means a lot to the community I represent. I would like to take a moment to thank a number of people here in the galleries this evening: Samuel Whitsed, for his dedication and courage on this to see it through and for lending his voice to get this done; Caitlin Kearley, who has been in and out of the Senate for a while—thank you for your courage; as acknowledged by Senator Gallagher, Gina Pinkas—thank you for your advocacy; Marshall Perron; our Chief Minister, Andrew Barr; the ACT Leader of the Opposition, Elizabeth Lee; the ACT Minister for Human Rights, Tara Cheyne; Andrew Denton and Dr Linda Swan, from Go Gentle; the staff at the Canberra Times, who have never let this matter get out of the spotlight here in the ACT and nationally; the Greens senators who have passionately fought for the rights of the territories to be restored for over a decade now; of course, my territory colleagues in the lower house Alicia Payne MP and Luke Gosling MP, for introducing this bill together; my broader territory colleagues Andrew Leigh, Marion Scrymgour and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, for your support; and Senator Gallagher, for her advocacy on this issue for a decade or so both at the Legislative Assembly and in this place. Tonight we finally we get to bring this to a vote. I hope we can continue this debate respectfully until that happens. But I want to take a bit of time to speak to the amendments. As Senator Gallagher and Senator Scarr noted, these amendments come from a good place. However, I would like to point out that the whole point of this bill is to remove the restraints on the territories, to restore our democratic right to debate and legislate on this issue in our local parliaments. These amendments add more restraints and go against the core aim of this bill, which is to allow the territories the same legislative rights and freedoms as the states—the same legislative freedoms of the vast majority of senators in here and the people that they represent in their states. The self-government acts were always intended to allow this legislative equality. With this simple repeal bill, we go back to that, and I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Overnight, I sought an opinion from barrister Fiona McLeod AO SC on the substantive amendment from Senator Nampijinpa Price. Her observations were that the definition offered in the Disability Discrimination Act would essentially render this bill ineffective. Under the act, and rightly so, anyone with a terminal illness could be thought of as living with a disability. Therefore, if this amendment were to pass, the ACT and Northern Territory would be unable to legislate the voluntary assisted dying scheme for the terminally ill. On another matter, the definition of mental impairment under the Criminal Code would create more uncertainty. Mental impairment in this context requires consideration of effect and context—in a criminal court case, no less. As McLeod said in her opinion, 'This definition's incorporation into the bill is unwieldy'. I won't be supporting this amendment. The bill is simple. It is about restoring the democratic rights of the territories. It allows the ACT and the Northern Territory to have the same respectful, considered discussions on voluntary assisted dying as our friends, family and neighbours in other states. This bill is about saying that the ACT and the Northern Territory should have the same right as the states in Australia to consult, to debate and to legislate on this issue that is very important to some in our communities—one that, clearly, involves tightly held and deeply personal views. I think we see that reflected in the way the states have done this, with the extensive consultations they have gone through. As Senator Hume talked about in her very moving speech, the states have significant safeguards in their legislation about who can access this and in what situation. I have no doubt that the territories would undertake a similar process. The benefit of the territories going last is that they have all the learnings from the states. While I accept that, around the world, there may be examples which are potentially shocking, we are in Australia. My sense is that the territories will follow in the footsteps of the states on this issue. So I urge senators to keep that in mind when we vote tonight. This is about people in the ACT and the Northern Territory having the same democratic right to make these important decisions in their own parliaments. 18:13 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia In contributing to this debate on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, I want to begin by acknowledging that there is an amendment currently before the chamber which purports to be an amendment for the benefit and protection of disabled people, in relation to a bill that is principally and solely, as Senator Pocock outlined for us, about the repealing of a piece of legislation that prevents the territories from engaging in a democratic discussion about the laws which govern them in relation to voluntary assisted dying. In responding to the amendment and putting my position to the Senate, I want to tackle, first of all, the reality that many disabled people will be watching the debate tonight. There will be many disabled people across the country who legitimately observe this debate and feel either a sense of concern about voluntary assisted dying or feel support for the amendment offered to the relevant piece of legislation. I do understand the concerns held by some disabled people in relation to voluntary assisted dying. I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to go with a couple of friends of mine, who are amazing disability activists in Western Australia, to a protest they were holding against a film which had recently then been released, a film by the name of Me Before You. It featured characters one of whom was disabled, and it chronicled the story of an individual who, on becoming disabled, made the decision to fly off to a Swiss suicide clinic and take their own life, because basically they couldn't think of anything worse than living as a disabled person. As a protest to that film, my colleagues were able to obtain permission to rock up in front of the cinema with tables and signs that read, 'Help me go to a Swiss suicide clinic. I am disabled. I don't want to live anymore.' During the course of 2½ hours they were able to raise over $250 from people going in and out of the movie, who not only were willing to give them money to go off to a so-called suicide clinic, but encouraged them to do so and thanked them for their bravery and courage in acknowledging that they were burdens, or were becoming burdens, to their family members. It's a story that has always stuck with me. I think it reveals the deep ableism that does exist in our community, that is perpetrated by decision-makers and perpetuated by decision-makers in this place. We must acknowledge the realities as we navigate these pieces of legislation. We are doing so in a broader cultural context that often normalises the idea that it is better to be dead than to be disabled. It is important that we acknowledge that. It is also important to acknowledge that, as has been quoted by other senators during the course of the debate, the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability has made comments to the government in Canada in relation to concerns over the administration of their system and amendments that may be needed to that process. Those things are right and proper to do. What it is not okay to do is to weaponise disabled people's lives and our safety and protection for political purposes. That is not okay. There are senators in this place who have cited comments given to the Australian government in relation to our compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. They are right to do that. I would remind them also that during the course of the previous government, and the government before that, Australia has been repeatedly told by the special rapporteur that we are in violation of many, many articles of that convention, including, as I will bring to the Senate's attention, the reality that right now in Australia it is legal to forcibly sterilise a disabled person, under the law. The Commonwealth government, under both Labor and Liberal leadership, has repeatedly refused to take action to end that practice. So if we are going to quote human rights recommendations, there is a hell of a lot of work to do in the Australian space when it comes to disability. I sit here as a disabled person that has many friends who are concerned about voluntary assisted dying. I sit here as a disabled person who will be supporting this piece of legislation, who will be voting soundly in opposition to this amendment. Why? First and foremost, because this bill seeks solely to repeal a preventive legislative measure that is currently preventing the territory from engaging in a conversation around voluntary assisted dying. Once this bill is passed by this chamber it will be up to the ACT legislature, as it has been up to the legislatures of every other state, but not territory, to engage in a consultation process around the safeguard mechanisms which are required. It is incumbent on the ACT assembly that they do this and do this vigorously; in the NT to engage and to do that vigorously; to ensure that there are proper safeguards; and where there are learnings internationally, have them incorporated. Engage the people of the ACT, including disabled people, and of the NT, including disabled people in that conversation, and listen to those concerns. That is the appropriate way to deal with the concerns raised in the amendment. The proposer talks about the need for consultation. Where was the consultation with disabled people in relation to this amendment? It is totally inappropriate, after the length of this debate, to come in here this evening and propose an amendment basically to block this bill, because it would make it inoperable. That would be the actual effect on this bill. To come in here and masquerade the attempt to block this bill as an attempt to protect disabled people and disabled peoples' lives. It is not okay, and it will not go by tonight without being called out for the cynical political move that it is. Senator O'Neill 140651 While I respect utterly the view of my learned colleague Senator Steele-John, who speaks with incredible experience and understanding of disability, I think the standing orders call on us not to, basically, diminish others in the chamber by articulating in your own words what their motivations are. It takes us away from the nature of the debate that we've been having so far. I would ask, on behalf of the mover of the amendment, that that aspersion be withdrawn. I don't think it takes anything away from your excellent contribution, but we care about this, and I would suggest, Chair, that it might be appropriate for withdrawal. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Senator Steele-John, I draw your attention to the relevant standing orders. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 I'm happy to withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Steele-John, do you wish to continue? Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 No, I've concluded. 18:22 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this amendment, even though I won't be supporting it. I find it really strange that we are standing here debating whether or not the territories should have the option or not to decide something for themselves. The people in the territories should have the same rights to choose as the states do. It's as simple as that. It shouldn't matter what the topic or issue is. I find it sad that I am being asked to stand here and vote about this, that I as a Tasmanian have the responsibility to decide whether or not territories get to decide issues for themselves. If you hadn't guessed, I am 100 per cent in favour of this bill and I think we should pass it without delay. People are focusing on the end result of this bill, that the ACT and Northern Territory will legislate voluntary assisted dying. They're opposing the bill based on that, but that's not all this bill is about. It's about the territories' rights to make these decisions for themselves. It's not a surprise that this has become a debate about morals and voluntary assisted dying. I've always said that if I stay true to my moral compass in this place I'll be okay. My moral compass is that there's nothing wrong with making sure people can make their own choice, the one that is best for themselves and their families. They are the only ones who should be able to do this. I stand here tonight, and I am so proud of Tassie and what we have in place. Voluntary assisted dying has been legal for one month in our state now. I know it is early days and there are still a few challenges to overcome. However, Tasmanians have the right to overcome this as Tasmanians see fit—without interference. I would like to give a shout-out to Mike Gaffney MLC for the amazing work he did on our bill. He spent years working on this legislation, and it was a very long campaign. So many brave people stood up and told their stories, stories about family members who went through so much, and in a perfect world they wouldn't need to. Jacqui and Natalie Gray led the campaign in memory of their beautiful mama. Their tireless efforts did not go unnoticed by the Tassie community. Jacqui and Natalie, from one Tasmanian to another, thank you. My fellow senators in this chamber have told similar stories. Senator Hume stood up and told her story only a few months ago. It was powerful to hear from someone, who once voted against this issue, who has now gone through that experience and now will vote for this bill. It was an incredibly meaningful contribution to this debate. I thank Senator Hume for her courage and for sharing her story with us. I can't imagine ever being in a position where I or someone that I love is told that our time on this earth is coming to an end. If I was I would want the option to decide how I go. Spending months or years in pain with no quality of life is not something anyone should be forced to go through. I understand there are people in this chamber who aren't supportive of this bill or voluntary assisted dying. I respect your right to have that opinion. It's not for me to stand here and tell you what to think or feel. But, my thoughts are this: why does it matter to the rest of us if someone chooses to end their own suffering? This sky isn't going to fall in because John from across the road had the option and chose peace. Voluntary assisted dying should be an individual choice. It doesn't matter what I think, what the Senate thinks, what this parliament thinks, all that matters is that people are allowed to make the choice that best suits them, their family and their circumstances. This week there have been lobbyists running around the hallways of parliament—no surprise there. They've been lurking in people's doorways demanding them to make changes to the bill. They've been doing the rounds once, twice—maybe even three times for some offices. I don't think these people are even from the territories. I don't think what they've been doing is okay. Who are they to say that people in the ACT and the Northern Territory can't make this decision for themselves? Who are they to try and take away the choice for the ACT and the Northern Territory to decide from themselves when they themselves have that right? For everyone in the ACT and the Northern Territory, I am sorry that you are being treated as second-class citizens, as if you shouldn't have the same rights as the states to decide for yourselves what is best for you. You have my full support. It has never been a question for me that this is the right thing to do. 18:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Let me start by, first of all, through you, Chair, addressing a comment to Minister Gallagher, because you have conducted yourself in an exemplary way throughout this whole debate. I note particularly the way you accepted and inquired into Senator Duniam's deep conviction but uncertainty in knowing what to do. You allowed that to be talked through. There are people here who are used to the behaviour in this chamber of not trusting each other. I reassured some of them that there's nothing suspicious going on. This bill is passed. The second reading was won. You won that. I thank you so much for doing what you did, in allowing Senator Duniam to speak, and the way in which you did that, Minister. I also want to, through you, Chair, acknowledge Senator Duniam, because something in his gut told him and he really came up and delivered. So I thank you so much for that. What is different about this debate, I've noticed, compared with most debates in this chamber, is that people are actually listening to each other, connecting and caring. I am in a bit of a conflicted position, because I am strongly in support of states' rights but territories are not states. I uphold the Constitution. I am not going to go there. I have already acknowledged that this bill has been passed through the second reading and it will go through in the third reading. I sincerely believe that this debate is not about territory rights. It is about euthanasia. As I said, we lost. I accept that. People here who will be with Senator Duniam, Senator Nampijinpa Price, Senator O'Sullivan, Senator Liddle, myself and others are making sure that their deep needs in caring for others are met and that safeguards are in place. Senator Nampijinpa Price has throughout her career and in her brief time in the Senate demonstrated exemplary integrity. She is a woman, a person, of complete integrity. She, I and others are concerned about children. It deeply saddens me that we have to discuss that. Senator Steele-John has spoken well about people with a disability and Senator Nampijinpa Price has also talked about people with mental health issues. These are vulnerable people. What's next? The aged? The sick? The lonely? That's my concern and that's why I will be supporting Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Duniam with this amendment. I will, though, tack on something. This has worked well, this debate. Even though my position hasn't succeeded, it has worked well, because I haven't heard any talk about parties. Senator ROBERTS 266524 That's not meant as a joke, it was meant sincerely— Senator McKenzie 207825 No, I— Senator ROBERTS 266524 I know that, Senator McKenzie. I'm not a woman, but I had the intuition to work out why you were laughing! Senator McKenzie 207825 And then you ruin it with, ' I'm not a woman but I had the intuition'! Sen 266524 I wonder what would happen in this place if the Senate sat in state and territory blocks? It's just a thought. 18:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Firstly, I want to acknowledge the widespread community interest in this debate, as there often is in free votes and conscience matters that come before this parliament. As others have reflected, these types of conscience votes do often bring out the best of thoughtful, considered, calm and reflective debate around the chamber. I acknowledge with that the very strong and personally held views around the chamber divide almost every party in this chamber on issues that people care about—be they questions associated with voluntary assisted dying and/or the questions associated with territory rights. People have brought those perspectives to bear here in good faith right around the chamber. I think it is important to acknowledge that. Senator Gallagher acknowledged a number of people who are here observing the debate. Many are in the gallery and many others are paying attention. She also came up to me afterwards, having realised that she had missed noticing the ACT Liberal leader, Elizabeth Lee, in the gallery. So I acknowledge everybody else and, on behalf of all of us, thank you for being here, Elizabeth, along with many others. I welcome very much the second reading vote that took place. It provided a clear indication of support for territory rights by 41 to 25 in this chamber, following the 99 to 37 majority in the House of Representatives. They were strong, clear endorsements by both chambers for the adoption of territory rights. As I said in my second reading remarks, much has changed since 1997 when the restrictions on the territories were put in place. Though I did not support those restrictions all the way back then, I can understand the sentiment that led to them at that stage—the sense that the Northern Territory was undertaking what was, in a global sense, an element of legislative adventure at the time. We have come a long way since then in this country, with all six Australian states having now legislated for models of voluntary assisted dying. It is no more a legislative adventure to pursue such a model; it is indeed common practice across Australia and in many other parts of the world. Importantly, each of those six state models around the country presents a model for the territories to consider in their legislative journey, should the restrictions in place be lifted. They present a model that didn't exist in 1997; as sound or solid as the model that Marshall Perron and Territorians legislated at that time may have been, there are now many others to look at and, critically, each of them comes with very extensive safeguards in place. Senator Nampijinpa Price rightly brings to this chamber an amendment that seeks to address some of the important issues of safeguards. Senator Nampijinpa Price is a proud Territorian. She brings this forward, I have no doubt, absolutely in good faith. She expressed her views in relation to territories' rights clearly, strongly and forcefully, as she does on every matter that she speaks about. As Senator Gallagher, Senator Scarr and others have acknowledged, it is in that good faith that we should consider the questions she has brought forward. Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle, in particular, rightly highlighted the crucial role of effective safeguards, especially in relation to the Northern Territory. We should not be closed to the unique circumstances of the NT and its vulnerable communities. They're right to highlight the paramount importance of having effective safeguards in place. And I trust that through this amendment being tabled and rightly debated and facilitated through this process, their message is loudly and clearly heard in terms of the importance of getting those safeguards right. However, there are many safeguards to be considered in legislating for voluntary assisted dying. Those contained in the amendments of Senator Nampijinpa Price are about some of those that either territory must consider in terms of legislating a model. That is why I think it is important that if we are restoring the rights to legislate for voluntary assisted dying to the territories, it should not be in a manner where the Commonwealth seeks to part legislate the model of voluntary assisted dying they adopt. We should restore those rights, doing so confident that democratically elected assemblies in those territories will consider all of the safeguards necessary for effective models of voluntary assisted dying. So I won't be supporting the amendment put forward in good faith by my colleague. I do, certainly—and I'm sure speak for all senators—expect that the territories consider these matters thoroughly and embed these types of safeguards in ways that effectively work for a model of voluntary assisted dying. That is what we should expect of them and that is what has occurred across the six Australian states and the different models that they have deployed and put in place. That is what putting the rights for the territories back in the hands of the territories will enable each of them to do as well. 18:37 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to indicate we will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment, if it were passed, would see the parliament restoring the rights of territorians with one hand and then taking them away with the other. That would be the effect of this amendment. I do want to acknowledge the lived experience and the truth and the contribution of my colleague Senator Steele-John, and I want to associate myself unambiguously with the contribution that Senator Steele-John made to the chamber. I also want to acknowledge all of the advocates, all of those who have worked for more than two decades to hopefully get us to this point. We should be clear that if this chamber accepts this amendment it will be completely undermining the bill. This process and the decades of work will have failed. That would be the effect of accepting the amendments to this bill. I note the work of Senator David Pocock and his office in obtaining the advice from Fiona McLeod SC. It's worthwhile reading onto the record what is perhaps the key paragraph from that advice, which is in relation to the definition of 'disability'. It says this: 'Finally, the incorporation of the definition of disability into the bill will render the bill ineffective. A person seeking access to assisted dying will inevitably fall within at least one of the limbs of the definition of disability. By way of illustration, if the amendments are adopted, a person diagnosed with an advanced incurable disease, expected to cause death within months and cause intolerable suffering, the eligibility criteria under Victoria's Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 and New South Wales's Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022, could not be the subject of a territory voluntary assisted dying law.' There you have it in black and white from a senior counsel. You can't on one hand say you support territories rights and on the other hand accept this amendment, because the amendment fundamentally, comprehensively undermines the bill. I'll finish with this. This is not the right place to put these checks and balances in, in an amendment that was tabled only hours ago, without the consultation. It's not. I know that because in my time in the New South Wales state parliament I engaged in two separate attempts to put in place voluntary assisted dying. One was in 2013, which unfortunately didn't succeed. It took months and months of debate and consultation and detailed committee consideration with I think well over 100 submissions in that initial phase in 2013. It didn't succeed. Then again in the legislation that finally passed earlier this year. Again these considerations, detailed work with disability groups, the medical profession, the legal profession. That consultation will happen in the territories if we allow them to do it. That's where that consultation should happen. That's where amendments like this need to be considered. We should not kid ourselves: if the Senate accepts this amendment, they will have destroyed the utility of the bill and we will be back at first base. 18:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia This bill is precisely about putting the rights back into the hands of territorians. Sadly, this amendment would do the exact opposite. It would effectively render the bill useless. We sit here tonight debating this piece of legislation which territorians have been asking for for 25 years. For 25 years, the Senate has made territorians suffer, because in 1997 this place did the wrong thing. It did the wrong thing by taking those rights away from territorians. Back then, 25 years ago, Australians knew it was wrong. Opinion poll after opinion poll showed that Australians generally, in whatever state or territory they lived, did not support the bill going through. Then, in the days and weeks after that original bill was put in, it was called the Senate's night of shame. Today, tonight, we have an opportunity to right that wrong. I want to make a short contribution. I know there have been so many eloquent speeches put on the record on this issue for so long. In my contribution I want to pay tribute specifically to the former leader of the Greens, former senator Bob Brown. He was here in this place 25 years ago arguing against the attack on territorians as this bill went through. It was not just the democracy that was under threat but the rights of people to choose dignity; the rights of people to choose to end suffering, to end pain. In his speech on the second reading, back in 1997, Bob called on his colleagues to think about the unnecessary pain and suffering that this place was inflicting on them. I can't be in this chamber tonight without thinking of how many people in 25 years have suffered because this place did the wrong thing on that night. This is about choice. This is about rights. But ultimately this is about human dignity. It was called the Senate's night of shame for a reason. People were outraged. They were insulted. They were offended. They were hurt. They felt as though their parliamentarians had let them down. We may all have our own opinions—and we do, deeply held—of what we would do if we were faced with that choice. But Australians by and large have always accepted that it is a personal choice and that just because we are a member of the parliament does not give us a God-given right to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on somebody else. I know there are a number of important people in the gallery here, and I acknowledge Andrew Denton and Andrew Barr. But tonight I want to specifically acknowledge the long-held fight of former Senator Bob Brown. Year after year after year, since 1997, he stood in this very place asking for us to right the wrong that was done 25 years ago, and it's time that we did. 18:45 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales This is the sound of democracy—the stridency, the pauses, the hope, the emotion, the respect for difference. Sometimes it concerns me that the debate about democracy calls for beautiful harmony. I like thirds. I love singing. I love the harmony that results when voices come out. But the sound of democracy is not always harmonious, and when it's at its best it's not autocratic; it's not one view over the others, with judgement everywhere. It's a multiplicity of voices. I actually said in one of our committee meetings this morning that the first time I heard the music of Shostakovich I thought: 'This is not the sort of music I'm able to cope with. I'm not able to listen to it, not able to stand it, because there's too much tension in the music.' It didn't sound familiar enough to me. I wanted sweet harmonies from the romantic period. But I learned to love it, as I've learned to love democracy. So, I'm very proud to be sitting in this chamber alongside colleagues who have given serious thought to this issue that's under debate as a matter of conscience and free vote for all of us. I want to respond to the contribution of Senator Tyrrell, who asked I think a really good question—one of these fundamental democratic questions—'Why am I here as a senator for Tasmania making a decision about people who live in the ACT and the Northern Territory?' Well, you're here because you're a federal senator. We're a federation. And in what we do and what we're referring to here we are actually speaking into the space that's been constructed by our Constitution. It is a fact that the purpose of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to remove provisions that are currently preventing the territories from passing legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying. That's what we are doing here, and we are doing it because section 122 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth has plenary powers to legislate for the territories. So, while this bill is colloquially described as restoring territory rights, ultimately it's not giving rights to the territories that are held by states. It's giving a right on one issue. It doesn't resolve the federal-territory relationship completely. This is despite much debate that articulates that this is just about territory rights. This is about one particular right, and it deserves our attention. It is the right to voluntary assisted dying, which in other contexts is called euthanasia. I've made clear in my second speech my particular view on this matter. I know that there was a vote last week when I wasn't here in parliament. I heard the contribution from Senator Roberts about the way in which that was conducted and his curry about how this is going to turn out. Maybe mine will be a strident voice and not a harmonious one tonight, but I think it is an important night to put things on the record. I won't resile from the fact that I represent here in this place the great Australian Labor Party, and amongst the Liberal Party and, dare I say, the Greens party and independents there are people of faith. They do wonderful things in our community. Their faith gives them action to do good works. They care. Many of our hospitals were first established by orders of faith. So I want to put on the record that part of this debate needs to be profoundly respected, even if you are not a person of faith. There is a faith position not shared harmoniously within each faith—stridently held views—but there are powerful, strong views, and there is tradition, there is dogma, there is thinking and there's a whole literature base about euthanasia and life. That voice, at odds with those who are fighting as wonderful citizens in this country for voluntary assisted dying, is a voice that we need to accept and live with. It is here in the chamber and it is in our community. It should be reflected everywhere. And that will be dealt with with another piece of legislation protecting people against religious discrimination. We are this wonderful multicultural, multifaith community, so I do not resile from the fact that it is a faith education in wonderful Catholic schools that gives me some confidence in putting on the record my particular view about voluntary assisted dying, which is that there are inherent risks that give me great concern. I want to make it clear that my view is that this bill is about euthanasia, and that seems to be the flavour of the debate that we are having around the chamber this evening. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of senators not just in the second reading debate over the many months that we been having this consideration but the contributions this evening of my colleague Senator Scarr about 'in good faith' conversations. I will have a couple of questions to both Senator Gallagher and Senator Nampijinpa Price about my concerns with the language that is in the amendment, the concerns that have been raised about the definitional matter. And, if I may ask Senator Pocock immediately, in referring to what Senator Shoebridge said about the advice that has been received from a barrister that you referred to in your own speech, Senator Pocock, that perhaps it might be tabled, because as this bill wraps up this evening—and it will go to a vote—these are resources that become useful to those from the territory, whether it is the ACT or the Northern Territory, in the deliberations that will occur. I want to acknowledge my colleagues here in this place from the Northern Territory and the ACT in the Labor Party and those who are from the Northern Territory and ACT in the opposition and on the crossbenches. Are there any? Yes, yes—the agitator, the man who has done what he promised and brought this to the attention of a parliament. That is a good thing, because that is democracy in action. Senator Pocock, are you willing to table the advice from the barrister that you have received that gives you a particular view about the risks inherent in the amendment that is being moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price? 18:54 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table the document requested by Senator O'Neill. 18:54 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to respond to a couple of points that have been made in the debate, particularly with regard to concerns about coercion. I do bemoan the fact—I'm in agreement with Senator Shoebridge on this matter—that there are things that are being brought before us at the last leg home that deserved greater and more careful consideration. It troubles me that there was not the opportunity for us to undertake a full inquiry. We do so much good committee work here in the Senate. It troubles me that there wasn't a committee charged with the responsibility of perhaps gathering this information and doing the good work that the Senate does before we got to this point on the particular matter that is being moved in this amendment. That's a concern for me about where we are in terms of management. I particularly think it goes to some of the points that have been made about people with disability, and the consultation with people with disability. Those points were very well made by Senator Steele-John this evening. I don't know if Senator Nampijinpa Price or Senator Gallagher can answer this question, but I am concerned about the commentary from Senator Shoebridge, who has said this evening with great confidence—it must be coming from somewhere; otherwise you would never come into this place and just make bold assertions for grandstanding on a matter so important—Senator Shoebridge has claimed tonight that if the amendment of Senator Nampijinpa Price passes it will render it inoperable and undermine any bills in the territories I'm seeking clarification on that very solid assertion that you've made. Perhaps some of the answers are in what's been received. I understand that that may be in the advice that's received, and that there may be an answer that's possible from either Senator Nampijinpa Price or Senator Gallagher. 18:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to speak to the amendment before the Senate and thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for bringing forward the amendment. I know it has been a very difficult time—a very difficult week and a difficult six months—as we all try and dig deep on an issue that requires us to use our conscience and reflect deeply on what matters in why we stand to speak for what we do, to support what we do and to say no to what we don't support. I respectfully say to my fellow territory senator that I don't support her amendment. I do believe, as I said in my previous statements not only in this debate but over so many years that we have raised it here before the Senate, that it is about the rights of the people of the territories. It is about the rights of the people in the ACT and the Northern Territory. To look at this amendment now, in my view, would only repeal what it is that we are here to do. Senators, it is very clear what the territories are asking us to do tonight. I take this opportunity to acknowledge former Chief Minister Marshall Perron—it's good to see you—and Chief Minister Andrew Barr. Listening to some of the speakers, I think it's really important to point out that yes, we do have a small population in the Northern Territory, but we have good hearts. We have great thinkers. We excel at so many levels. We only have to look at the COVID pandemic, when we were so fearful for the lives of First Nations people in this country and when we were so fearful for the lives of First Nations people in the Northern Territory. Since the former Chief Minister introduced the bill in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory has grown exponentially in those skills, that knowledge and the ability to make its own decisions. We have 13 Aboriginal controlled health sectors across the Northern Territory who ensured, through all of those practitioners, that they could go out to each and every Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory, along with the health practitioners of Northern Territory Health. It was the people of the Northern Territory who put their hand up to support all Australians, and the first planeload that needed help, from China, landed in Darwin. It was our health professionals who carried the load for our country. It was our health professionals, through the AUSMAT team, who reached out to Christmas Island, where the first couple of planeloads went, to treat our Australians who were fearful of having COVID. That in itself, senators, shows the incredible weight that we carry as a small jurisdiction and a small population, and our ability to do what we believe we should do to help others. So why is it that we are constantly told we cannot make any decisions for ourselves—that we cannot have even the opportunity to debate an important decision? I want to take this opportunity to bring to the debate the voices of two former Indigenous politicians who, in 1995, spoke about voluntary euthanasia. One of them was the late Wes Lanhupuy, the then member for Arnhem. He said in his speech on this debate: Like other members, I have taken the issue up with many people in my electorate, not only with Aboriginal people but also with communities such as Angurugu on Groote Eylandt whose residents indicated their views to me. If we are to mature and accept responsibilities, such as statehood … I have had close personal experience of terminal illness and I can express a personal view as to its effects and what is involved in that traumatic period when seeing someone undergoing a very hard time in their life and facing a tragic end. …   …   … Mr Speaker, I can assure you that, in the 11 years that I have been in this parliament, this is the most difficult bill that I have ever had to examine and ponder on. I have had sleepless nights over it for a whole range of reasons, not the least being my personal feelings towards it because of the personal tragedy that I mentioned earlier. At the time, I expressed my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister and many others who helped me through that period. It was a very difficult time. He said: 'I have never had the opportunity to raise those questions in my life.' He went on: I for one would like to see this bill supported because I believe that I have been given the right to express my view in this case. That was the late Mr Wes Lanhupuy, the member for Arnhem. Then you had the late Mr Maurice Rioli, the member for Arafura, who spoke in that debate. He said: Since the member for Fannie Bay gave notice of his intention to introduce voluntary euthanasia legislation into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, people have been polarised in relation to the issue. …   …   … I have received nothing but indications of overwhelming opposition to this bill from constituents in my electorate of Arafura which contains 8 major Aboriginal communities and many outstations. Most of these communities have written and spoken to me about their concerns in relation to the bill. …   …   …    At Nguiu on Bathurst Island, we heard from representatives that they were brought up by the missionaries. They said that they have strong Christian beliefs as well as their own cultural and traditional beliefs, and that they do not support the bill. …   …   … As a Tiwi person, I am all too familiar with death and dying … I understand my stance here today will be seen to be against the rights of individuals, but I cannot walk away from my beliefs or those of my electorate. I do not support the member for Fannie Bay's bill. Senators, I give you two examples—one for and one against. I give those examples to you because I have heard senators stand up here and speak as though we are incapable in the Northern Territory of being able to have a mature debate on all sides of politics. That is what tonight is about. Tonight is about the Northern Territory saying to the federal parliament: please, do the right thing. Let us make our own decisions. Rightly or wrongly, they are ours. Most jurisdictions in this country have done it, after the Northern Territory had led the way. Senators, I call on you to not support this amendment and please support the people of the Northern Territory. 19:06 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I join with Senator Birmingham and Senator O'Neill, who very different views to me on the substantive issue and the way we will be voting—different sides of politics in your case, Senator O'Neill. Both your contributions, for me, highlight when this chamber is at its best: it's the rare moments when we get to debate and discuss matters of conscience. It is when senators around the chamber who all have different views, different values and different lived experiences in our nation stand up and respectfully put them on the record and respectfully listen to each other's very different views. I've been incredibly concerned, over recent years, that having different values and views is suddenly becoming a dangerous idea in this fabulous liberal democracy of ours—that divergent views are somehow dangerous and debase us. But I think deriding difference is what debases us. What makes us stronger and more mature as a democracy is to be able to make our way through hard, difficult conversations such as this one in the Senate, because—you know what?—it's a hard and difficult situation and discussion for our communities. To come in here and pretend it's not is debasing difference, is not being tolerant of divergent views and is not democratic. These are deeply held values. They are matters of faith. With respect to the Northern Territory, I look forward to one day being able to debate and vote for a bill in this place that provides statehood for the Northern Territory and that provides statehood for the ACT. But, as my good friend and always opposing colleague Senator O'Neill put on the record, these are questions that relate to faith. For me, I have been consistent in this place with this particular question whenever it has been before me. This year we've been talking a lot about respect in the workplace and a lot about how we can all make this workplace a lot more respectful. I don't think we're ever going to make it kinder and gentler; I think politics and the things we debate here need to be done robustly. Look at how we've been debating the industrial relations legislation in this place and the other place this week; we passionately oppose each other's view on this thing. That's why we were elected to do what we do on this side and why you were elected to do what you do on that side. But we do need to do things more respectfully, and when I see the senators who are in my team being disrespected in the chamber for their values and their views then I think it debases us all. I thank you again, Senator O'Neill, for calling that point of order earlier. I will be voting for the amendments put forward by Senator Nampijinpa Price. I want to thank both her and Senator Liddle for their lived-experience contributions to this place. For too often, I think, we've all debated ideas and issues without actually hearing from those who have the lived experience of how these things play out in the unique and special places that we have in this country. It is absolutely right and proper that this bill will pass tonight. It's heading off to the ACT and the NT legislatures to do with what they will. So in articulating her specific concerns and her careful consideration of the unique situation that is in the Territory, I think it is very, very sound for the senator to stand up and say: 'Do you know what? While you're having that conversation, can you just think about these safeguards for young people, those with mental impairment and the disabled?' The amendments are sound and thoughtfully constructed. We've seen legal advice tabled here in the Senate that says the contrary, that it will make these bills unworkable in the NT and indeed in the ACT. That's a real reflection on our clerks, because our clerks actually drafted these amendments so that the outcome Senator Nampijinpa Price was seeking, that these very simple safeguards would be part of— Senator 169119 That's outrageous! Senator McKENZIE 207825 Sorry, I'm asking for a respectful debate, Senator Shoebridge. We can take it outside and you can yell at me all you like. I know you're new here, but the way conscience votes work in this place, in the Senate— The CHAIR: Senator Polley? Senator Polley e5x I want to raise a point of order. I've been in this chamber for not enough years yet, I might add, but when we have these debates it is so disrespectful to interject. Whether you agree or disagree with the amendment or the substantial motion, Chair, people should be heard in silence and with respect. You can't on one day come into this chamber and talk about respect and then interject when there's a debate like this, which is very emotional. I had chosen not to speak, but I do sincerely hope that people will show the same respect. We have to continue to work together tomorrow, the day after and for years to come, so I ask you, Chair, to remind people of their responsibility to be respectful in this debate. The CHAIR: I will leave your fine words to the chamber. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Senator Polley. I think we've all known enough lawyers to know that you can get an opinion on almost any issue to reflect your chosen outcome. That is not disparaging of the legal profession; it is actually how it works. It's the type of profession which articulates opposing views, and lawyers are very well schooled in being able to argue both sides of any given topic. They're very good at it. So whilst I respect that Senator Pocock has found a lawyer who says that these amendments will make the territory rights bill unworkable in the ACT or the NT, I'm sure we could find an 'opposing view', shall we say, somewhere else in the legal profession. But I know the clerks of the Senate very well, and I know that when they draft amendments for all of us, or when they draft private senator's bills for us, that they do that to the very, very highest standard. They will have drafted these amendments to ensure that if the Senate chooses to adopt them—and it sounds like it won't—that they wouldn't render the territory rights bill inoperable, because that would be against the intention of the senator who sought their advice. On that note, I do love the days that we are our very best selves in this place and the way that the friendships that have been developed over a long period of time are able to come to the fore and that we're sitting next to people we never sit next to in our everyday work. And it only works because we do treat each other with respect at work, and I would seek that we have more days like this. Thank you. 19:15 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I appreciate Senator McKenzie's contribution to this debate. I would like to point out to the chamber that Senator McKenzie is casting aspersions on someone who is not here to defend themselves. Barrister Fiona McLeod AO SC provided this advice pro bono. This was not something we sought out to get a particular outcome. We were handed this amendment, and we sought advice. So I would just like to clear the record there. 19:16 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I wish to speak against this amendment. The core of this debate that we are having is about restoring territory rights so the territories' can make decisions for themselves. This amendment by Senator Nampijinpa Price would interfere with that. It would mean that a lot of those rights actually wouldn't be restored. Fundamentally, our debate needs to be about the rights of the territories to decide for themselves. I'm a Victorian and I now live in a state where we have voluntary assisted dying. I haven't spoken in this debate before, and I will put on the record that I am a supporter of voluntary assisted dying. I think the way that it has been managed in Victoria has been exemplary. But in one way we're talking about voluntary assisted dying, and that's not what we should be talking about here. We should be talking about the rights of the territories to be making decisions for themselves. The fact that the territories have different rights to the states is an anachronism. It's a random facet of our colonial past such that, as a Victorian, I have the opportunity to be part of that decision-making process to elect my members of parliament who made that decision, but people who live in the territories don't. And it's just not appropriate. This bill that we are debating tonight is going to go some way to restoring that, to say that on this very sensitive issue—on the issue as to whether people have the right to choose to end their lives in a way that they desire, that is peaceful, and how they want to end their lives. They should have the right to do that in the ACT and the Northern Territory just as I now do have as a Victorian. I don't want to speak for much longer—I do want to get home tonight—but I really felt that it was worthwhile just putting that on the record. I also want to acknowledge the people who are in the gallery: the Chief Minister of the ACT Andrew Barr, Marshall Perron, Andrew Denton and the people that have been following this debate for a long time. The fact that we've got such a full gallery shows what a significant issue this is and shows that we need to be respecting the rights of territorians to be making these decisions for themselves. 19:18 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I too haven't spoken on this bill but I can't support this amendment and I, along with my colleagues, will not be voting for it. In 2019 my mother was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. At that time in Queensland she did not have access to VAD. But she told me that she would have liked to have known that she at least had the choice. And I think it would have given her a lot of comfort to know that, as her body degenerated and failed her, that was going to be an option for her. If this amendment passes then people in the Territory who have a disease like motor neurone disease will not have that choice, because that would clearly fall within the category of a disability. It is an insidious disease. You can't walk, you lose your ability to speak, you lose all of your ability to control your bodily functions and eventually you suffocate from that disease. It is a horrible way to die. My mother was lucky for someone who had that disease. She cardiac arrested before she lost her ability to speak and breathe. Please let's not take away the right from people in the territory to have their government debate and decide whether or not they should have the right to choose and what safeguards need to be included with it. Thank you. 19:20 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to ask a question, but first can I convey my deep sympathy to you, Senator Allman-Payne. This is very, very real for all of us, and there is no judgement. We are best when we respect each other. That's when we're our finest. I'm sure everyone here and those listening would convey their deep condolences to you on your loss. I'm very appreciative, Senator Pocock, of the tabling of the advice, and I have had the chance now to have a look at that. It is a beautifully written document, as you would expect from a barrister who has given this as a pro bono contribution to our national debate on this issue. Can I just indicate that there are a few words in here that I would be picking up if I was doing some analysis in my year 11 English class, words like 'potentially excluded' and 'potentially affected'. It's a very useful piece of information, and I'm sure that it will be taken on board by the state—the territories, sorry; perhaps I do have an inadvertent desire for you to become a state, as well—by the territories and will become part of what informs their deliberations moving forward. Nonetheless, I am not convinced by the argument that has been put on the floor this evening that supporting Senator Nampijinpa Price's amendment would be the end of any possibility of responding to the will of the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory. I also acknowledge the incredibly eloquent and beautiful contribution of my colleague from the Northern Territory Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. I wonder if I can again ask that question of Senator Nampijinpa Price: can you clarify for me, can you add anything to the debate this evening about why it is that you believe the word that was put in here by the Clerk—the word 'solely'—addresses the issues of protecting people under the age of 18 and those with a disability from being engaged in the process of voluntary assisted dying. 19:22 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I have stated my position. My colleague Senator McKenzie has also, I think, clarified this particular point. It speaks to legislation that has passed in states. It's almost a copy and paste from legislation that has passed in other states, and clearly the legislation has not rendered it futile for those states to carry out voluntary assisted dying and to legislate on voluntary assisted dying. I reiterate that what I propose in my amendment, my intentions that were provided to the Clerk, understood that it is not to attempt to render the bill futile. As I've stated, I am in support of territory rights. I'm also in support of elevating the human rights of vulnerable people. That is probably one of the biggest priorities I have in terms of decision-making in these chambers, and I have the right to do so as an elected senator for the Northern Territory. I am deeply concerned at the state of the Northern Territory. I have witnessed the Territory government have put back in their hands the responsibility of alcohol availability in the Northern Territory. I have seen the vulnerable individuals lives in their hands and the way in which they have failed in their duty to uphold the human rights of vulnerable people in our communities, because as we speak right now there are children in communities who once upon a time, not that long ago, were able to live lives free of alcohol abuse. Those children are now suffering with alcohol abuse, with violence, with the threat of violence, with the threat of sexual abuse constantly hanging over their heads, and heightened states, because the Territory government—the Fyles Labor government—have failed to uphold their duty to protect the vulnerable to be able to live lives free of alcohol abuse, free of sexual abuse, because of the influence of alcohol in their communities. I will reiterate, particularly for some of my Greens colleagues in this chamber, that I am putting these amendments forward to elevate the human rights of our vulnerable. It doesn't diminish the right for Territorians to legislate. It provides safeguards that already exist in other states. The Territory is not losing out in any way, shape or form. It will just be enhancing what the Territory is able to do, because all I am seeking is to safeguard the human rights of vulnerable members of the Northern Territory and do it at this stage. Nobody is missing out from this. Nobody is losing their rights. This is about the enhancement of the human rights of the vulnerable in the Territory that I have been elected, as a senator, to represent. It's as simple as that. The CHAIR: I put the question, which is the question to put the question. Question agreed to. The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1764 standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price be agreed to.     The CHAIR (19:36): I alert honourable senators that Senator Duniam has an amendment to the report, which will be moved when I returned to the President's chair. Senators will be able to debate that. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments.

The committee divided. [19:32]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

19:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the report be adopted. 19:37 Senator DUNI 263418 Tasmania AM (—) (): Very briefly—I don't want to detain the Senate or those who are interested in this debate for long at all—I think it is important to note that this debate has been a long time coming and that the resolution of it is important to deliver to those who've been banking on it, so I will be very, very brief in my contribution. I have circulated an amendment around this question, that the report of the committee be adopted. It relates to the administration of rules around access to the medicines used in the administration of VAD, bringing them into line with other medications through the processes available through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its relevant legislation. It's a very straightforward amendment. Obviously, noting the scope of this legislation, it is something that is, in a sense, outside the scope of the bill that we are going to pass tonight. But I did, as I said last week, want to give voice to the issues that have been raised and that's what I'm doing today. It is important that we make sure we are apprised of all the facts and that all the safeguards are in place, much in the same way as we heard in the last debate about protection for vulnerable people in our community. Before I conclude my very brief remarks, I also just want to add my thanks to every single senator in this chamber. I'm very proud of the conduct of the debate that took place here. It was sensitive; it's difficult, and everyone has made sure that the views that were expressed were heard in good faith. I particularly want to thank Senator Gallagher and Senator Hanson-Young for so willingly accommodating this and enabling the amendment to be moved. I it added another week, so I'm grateful for your time. If we can do it in this chamber—if we can have a respectful debate in this chamber—I hope that our friends in the Press Gallery can observe what we do and not ascribe motive without understanding why we're doing it. It is important that we are able to do this. As I said, I am proud of my colleagues, who have very different views to my own, for conducting the debate in this way. With that I move: The text of the amendment was unavailable at the time of publishing. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to the report as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [19:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 42 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Report adopted.

 Third Reading 114 19:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 114

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

In Committee 114 19:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (16) and (21) to (28) on sheet 1779 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2, 3 and 4), omit the table items. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 6, 7 and 8), omit the table items. (3) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 21), omit the table item. (4) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 24), omit the table item. (5) Clause 2, pages 4 and 5 (table item 27), omit the table item. (6) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 28), omit the table item. (7) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 29), omit the table item. (8) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 30), omit the table item. (9) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 34), omit the table item. (10) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 7 (line 2) to page 33 (line 20), to be opposed. (11) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 42 (line 1) to page 80 (line 22), to be opposed. (12) Schedule 1, Part 15, page 168 (lines 1 to 26), to be opposed. (13) Schedule 1, Part 18, page 181 (line 1) to page 187 (line 22), to be opposed. (14) Schedule 1, Division 3 of Part 19, page 192 (line 15) to page 193 (line 19), to be opposed. (15) Schedule 1, Part 20, page 197 (line 1) to page 211 (line 17), to be opposed. (16) Schedule 1, Part 21, page 212 (line 1) to page 228 (line 16), to be opposed. (21) Schedule 1, Part 22, page 229 (line 1) to page 231 (line 29), to be opposed. (22) Schedule 1, Part 23, page 232 (line 1) to page 237 (line 25), to be opposed. (23) Schedule 1, item 660, page 251 (line 19) to page 252 (line 7), Division 2 to be opposed. (24) Schedule 1, item 660, page 257 (line 21) to page 258 (line 9), Division 14 to be opposed. (25) Schedule 1, item 660, page 258 (lines 28 to 31), omit subclause 72(5). (26) Schedule 1, item 660, page 259 (line 11) to page 262 (line 11), Divisions 16 and 17 to be opposed. (27) Schedule 1, item 660, page 263 (after line 15), at the end of Part 13, add: Division 20 — Review of operation of amendments 85 Revie w of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act to be conducted by an independent expert as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the amending Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) The person who conducts the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister (28) Schedule 1, Division 2 of Part 26, page 263 (line 16) to page 265 (line 2), to be opposed. These amendments really do go to what is the fundamental issue before the chamber. That is, this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill that has not been properly scrutinised by this Senate chamber. It is a bill where unfortunately the job creators of the country stand united and say it will not have its desired effect, that it will only result in increased strike action and less jobs. In the first instance, this amendment will overturn the provisions in the bill that abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. Today, in the Senate, as I questioned the minister in relation to the effect of the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and whether or not the Fair Work Ombudsman would have the capacity to undertake the same duties as the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the answer was clearly no. So why do we move this amendment? Because the building and construction industry in Australia is fundamental to the functioning of our economy. It contributes approximately nine per cent of GDP, it accounts for more than 1.5 million employees in Australia and there are over 400,000 small businesses around Australia that rely on the building and constructions sector. Ultimately, why am I most worried about the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission? That is because, shortly, the workers across Australia in the Building and Construction Commission will be handed over on a silver platter to John Setka and the most militant union in Australia. So, whilst, yes, those on the other side do have an ideological objection to the Australian Building and Construction Commission, I have to say he is already out there in South Australia and Adelaide flexing his muscles. Builders in Adelaide are very, very worried. I think the fact that the majority of the inspectors in the Fair Work Ombudsman are actually female and there doesn't appear to have been anything done to prepare them for the world of John Setka is a very, very disturbing fact. The fact is you have the EY report that clearly states that the economic impact of the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, between now and 2030, will be around $47.5 billion. At the moment in the economy there are higher interest rates and higher inflation, higher unemployment and electricity prices that are soaring. Put into that the effect of this bill on the building and construction sector and ultimately the Australian economy and, I have to say, you have a trainwreck ready and waiting to happen. In relation to the provisions to abolish the section in relation to multi-employer bargaining, when the employers in Australia stand up united—the BCA, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, COSBOA, the MCA and the manufacturers as we heard today from Senator Henderson—they represent the job creators in this country. What they are saying to the Australian Labor Party is that we actually are telling her, as the people who represent the job creators in this country, that this will not have the desired effect. They make it very clear that we all want to see higher wages in Australia. That is not up for debate. But they want a framework in which they can operate and actually deliver the higher wages, a design move to deliberately move away from the primacy of enterprise bargaining—bargaining at an enterprise level, which even Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard realised is the essence of the employment relationship. Why? Because between the employer and the employee, based on the nature of the enterprise itself, you can negotiate terms and conditions that are a win-win for both parties. Yet, when this bill passes, if you have 20 or more employees in your business in Australia you could actually be, against your will, compelled, roped into—use whatever words you want—multi-employer bargaining. I see Senator Watt, who I put all those questions to, is out there telling people we've been wasting time actually examining this bill in the Senate chamber. It's ironic. Maybe Senator Watt doesn't know what he was elected here to do, but the last time I checked, when I flip open any book about the Australian Senate I'm pretty sure it says 'the house of review'—apparently, according to Senator Watt, we don't have a role in reviewing legislation. We actually take our role very seriously. The questions I put to minister after minister after minister were actually from employers and employees from around Australia, asking merely for some guidance in relation to the common-interest test: if we put this, this and this together, does that mean we have a common interest? 'That's a matter for the Fair Work Commission.' No guidance can be given to the employers in Australia as to whether they will or won't be roped into employer bargaining. We've also heard that there is a possibility that a business with 21 employees could actually be negotiating with a business with 200 employees. I'm not quite sure how that works, because I'm pretty sure the business with the 200 employees probably does have an employee called the human resources department, and for the business with the 21 employees, I'm pretty sure the human resources department would be the owner of the business. The government's regulatory impact statement itself says that the owner of the business of the person they actually nominate will spend 4.6 hours per day. I put to the department, 'Where do you think they're going to find this 4.6 hours per day?' Is it during their working hours, so they actually lose profit, or is it after they finish work for the day, do the books, make sure the employees are okay, go home and make sure the kids are okay, look at their watch and say, 'Holy shit, it's midnight and I've got to be up at 5 am—Oh my God: 4.6 more hours so I can actually negotiate and bargain with a business. It bears no resemblance to mine, but apparently it has a common interest.' I don't' know—you're in the same shopping centre, you're in the same suburb, I don't know. Certainly the ministers couldn't tell me, because, again, that's up to the Fair Work Commission. Moving away from the primacy of enterprise bargaining to a centralised wage-fixing scheme is, as Senator Hanson quite frankly stated today, only going to end in tears. The amendments in relation to the common-interest test will ensure that the requirement for the common interest is met only if it is in the public interest. Why do I say that? People say, 'Well, hey, hold on: it already says "in the public interest" in the act. Ah, but the drafters are very tricky little drafters here. They have actually lowered the bar so the test is that it's not contrary to the public interest. The Senate transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.